Main Page

I'm Nathan Larson, neoreactionary libertarian candidate in Virginia's 10th congressional district election of 2018.

News

In 2017, I ran for Delegate in Virginia's 31st House of Delegates district. I thank all 481 residents (comprising 1.68 percent of the electorate) who voted for me. You have earned the right to consider yourselves the elite vanguard of the Restoration. The campaign is over, but the neoreactionary libertarian movement is just beginning.

It is noteworthy, by the way, that a number of Republicans, including Ed Gillespie, who opposed my being allowed to run for office, were defeated in the election.

Press releases

Nathan Larson notes that Barbara Comstock is at risk of becoming an electoral rape victim

8 January 2018 — Catlett, Virginia — Neoreactionary libertarian congressional candidate Nathan Larson noted today that Barbara Comstock is at risk of becoming an electoral rape victim.

"I once attended a sexual assault prevention seminar led by a police officer who told the class that rapists usually target women who look weak and vulnerable," Larson said. "If they see a woman walking to her car with purposeful strides and a confident demeanor, car keys in hand, they'll probably leave her alone, because she looks like the sort of woman who might be able to put up a fight. Her calmness suggests that perhaps she has already prepared herself with a plan for what to do is attacked, to the point that her mind is unclouded by fear. She may be the type of woman who, in a moment of crisis, can come up with a way of defending herself and take decisive action, rather than panicking.

"In contrast, if a rapist sees a woman who looks timid and uncertain, that's the one he's more likely to attack. He knows that when he grabs hold of her, she won't be able to put up effective resistance. Trying to run won't do any good, because he's already got her in his grip. Therefore, he will be able to have his way with her.

"I notice that Barbara Comstock doesn't show a lot of confidence in her ability to defend herself against the commentary made by the activists who stalk her; instead of facing her questioners, she tries to turn and run from the cameras, which of course doesn't work. She doesn't hold town halls, which suggests to me that she doesn't believe she can handle herself well in that kind of setting. Her telegraphing her insecurity in such an obvious way is bound to awaken the predatory instincts of political rivals who would enjoy very much subjecting her to a brutal electoral rape this November.

"Not that there's anything wrong with that. Rape is, after all, a way of humbling women and putting them in their place. It's a way of taking possession of women, and forcing them to become wives and mothers. And in this case, the voters would be saying, 'No, no, you have more important stuff to do than sit around shuffling legislation in Congress; you could be changing the world directly by being a moral support for your husband and nurturing your kids and grandkids.'

"At a point in history like ours, we need bold agents of change, and women just aren't known for stepping forward to fulfill that kind of role. Therefore, the anti-establishment mood of the voters will tend to work against her re-election prospects.

"Barbara Comstock was was listed as among the 2016 50 Most Beautiful. Beautiful women tend to have beautiful children and grandchildren; and in turn, beauty tends to be correlated with quality. She's probably intelligent as well, which means there's a high chance her offspring have good genetics and therefore potential that would be worth nurturing. Congress will always be around (at least till the neoreactionary revolution), but those kids will grow up and be gone.

"Congress is mostly a place where wannabe celebrities, who weren't attractive enough to make it in Hollywood, nor athletic enough to make it in sports, hang out and use their fame and status to try to impress young women. There are only 535 slots available, and it's kind of a waste for one of those districts to go to a woman who already has a husband and therefore has everything she needs to reach her reproductive potential. Men, in contrast, have almost unlimited reproductive potential, in that we could impregnate several women a day if we had the opportunity; which makes it worth going to all the trouble to try to rise to a high status by, say, running for Congress. Remember what Adolf Hitler said about female legislators:

If I think to myself that a woman shall make an appearance at an adjudication, then I have to say: When that would be a woman who is close to me, and if I wanted to imagine my mother would be still alive and has to sit in front of a murder in a court and decide the verdict never, never! We don't want that! I also don't want an uniformed female police to walk around and run after scamps or criminals. These are all things we actually don't want.

Then they come naturally and say promptly: "Excuse me, but you don't let them into the parliaments as well." Certainly, but only because I am also satisfied that the parliament doesn't raise the value of the woman, but it would only degrade her. I removed the men from the parliamentary service as well. In former times, in former times I was often told: "Don't you think that if you get the woman in the Reichstag that the woman would refine the manners of the Reichstag then and thereby?" I even have no interest to refine the Reichstag or to refine its manners at all, because whether honored, knighted or ennobled, is ranting or not, that is entirely the same. Above all, I am also convinced that, for example, the parliament at the time was nothing more than a sack of rotten apples. Now... you will say to me: "That's why you should put some sound ones into it, now!" No, I prefer to leave the sound ones out, lest they become rotten, too. It's better to let something die, which is destined to die.

When I look around the world today, the picture from the papers that comes to mind is a woman's regiment in the Soviet Union in the sharpshooting! Or a women's battalion of grenadiers in Spain! Or, all I can say to the representatives of this type of female equality, I would not be a man, if I wanted to tolerate such a thing. I experienced the war. I know how hard it is. I know how many men's nerves have been shattered by this war. I have often seen them return by the dozens, doddering, completely ruined and broken! The idea that a girl or a woman has to take it upon herself, I could have no respect for the German men then! Either they take responsibility for this or they shall resign! As long as we have a healthy male gender — and we National Socialists will ensure it — no female grenadiers and sharpshooters will be trained in Germany. That's no equality, but in reality inferior rights for women, because it's harder for women than for men. For her it is much more terrible than for man. I could say just as well that I am arming children in future and sending them to war. We won't do it.

But apart from that, before our very eyes there is a vast expanse of job opportunities and work area for the woman, because for us the woman has been the most faithful work and life companion of the man at all times. They often said, "You want to remove women from all professions!" On the whole, I will give her only the chance of being able to marry and to assist her to found an own family and to have children, because she would then — and this is my conviction now — benefit our people the most, of course. For that's clear, and you need to understand it from me, if I have a female lawyer in front of me these days and it doesn't matter how much she has achieved, and next to her is a mother of five, six, seven children and they are in great health and well-educated by her, then I want to say: From the eternal point of view of the eternal value of our people the woman — who is able to have children and has children and raised them and thereby gave our people the further ability to live in the future — has achieved more. She has done more. She assists us to avoid the death of our people.

Nathan Larson explains his interest in 15-year-old girls

8 January 2018 — Catlett, Virginia — Neoreactionary libertarian congressional candidate Nathan Larson explained today his interest in 15-year-old girls.

"Some people think it's because I can't handle a real woman," Larson noted. "Others think it's because I want a girl who's more naive and therefore easier to seduce. In reality, I just have discerning tastes. There's a scene in Les Misérables in which Victor Hugo writes, with regard to Marius's first encounter with Cosette:

The woman whom he now saw was a noble, beautiful creature, with all the most bewitching outlines of woman, at the precise moment at which they are yet combined with all the most charming graces of childhood, -- that pure and fleeting moment which can only be translated by these two words: sweet fifteen. Beautiful chestnut hair, shaded with veins of gold, a brow which seemed like chiselled marble, cheeks which seemed made of roses, a pale incarnadine, a flushed whiteness, an exquisite mouth, whence came a smile like a gleam of sunshine, and a voice like music, a head which Raphael would have given to Mary, on a neck which Jean Goujon would have given to Venus. And that nothing might be wanting to this ravishing form, the nose was not beautiful, it was pretty; neither straight nor curved, neither Italian nor Greek; it was the Parisian nose; that is, something sprightly, fine, irregular, and pure, the despair of painters and the charm of poets.

"Who wouldn't want that? A 15-year-old girl's breasts are about as perky as they're ever going to be; why let that go to waste, rather than sucking on them while she's in her prime? Scott Donner writes in The Lolita Method:

Basically, we fuck "forbidden" girls because they are the best pussy around. Everybody knows it, even if no one has the guts to say it. We love how they look, how they feel, how they laugh, how they pout, how they stare at your man-sized cock with fascinated, frightened eyes. Above all, we love their youth, their energy, the electricity that crackles off their soft, tight, elastic skin ... their innocence, their naivete, their inexperience, their worship ... get the picture ..?

If you think this makes us perverts, just take a look around, my friend. Television, movies, magazine ads, women's tennis: the statutory dream queen (be it fantasy or reality) is our ideal in this society -- from Brooke Shields, Jodie Foster and Natasha Kinski of the 70s to Kate Moss in the 90s. Remember Traci Lords, the porno super nova who made all those movies when she was under 18?

Traci's whole mystique exemplified the Lolita Complex in our society. She looked like a high school chick and fucked like Satan himself possessed her. Then she turned 18 (and state's evidence) and now she's lucky for a bit part on Married With Children or Melrose Place. This isn't because Hollywood has disowned her given her previous career. Traci Lords is no longer a bankable commodity because she's over 18, all washed-up, old news, long in the tooth, etc., etc...

As a society, we want it tight -- tight asses, tight tummies, tight skin, tight tits and a tight pussy. Is it any wonder then that men such as ourselves should want our part of the American Wet Dream.

We want to suck on pert, firm, no-sag tits. We want to kiss flat, hard, no-cellulite tummies. We want to lick sweet, hairless pussies, and feel our man-cocks split open ripe pussies that will never forget the man-sized dimensions of their first frontal assaults. We want to hear nervous giggles, peer into eager eyes, feel slender fingers play with our cocks like they're brand new toys at Christmas.

Above all, we revel in the feeling of domination, of asserting the God-given superiority of our penises. In this regard, we agree whole-heartedly with the radical lesbian feminist interpretations of bitches like Andrea Dworkin and Catharine MacKinnon.

Yes, we are the patriarchy, and we strive to do nothing less than perpetuate the inferior status of females, especially "forbidden" girls, until the end of time.

"I don't really get off on the domination and defilement aspect as much as he does, although maybe I should, because girls certainly seem to like to play the submissive role and experience the thrill of being taken and used by a man in every 'dirty' and depraved way he can think of, which excites her by pushing her out of her comfort zone and making her feel a range of emotions. I just like to have the best, that's all. It's like asking, 'Do you want a cold beer, or do you want this beer that's been out for awhile and isn't so cold anymore?' Of course I want the cold beer. It's gonna taste better.

"It's not even really showing respect for the beer, and the craftsmanship that went into brewing it, if you don't drink it in the state in which it was designed to be drank, which is cold. Same way with women. A man and a woman gave their genetics to produce a girl, whose body is now in peak bloom. It would actually be more respectful to her parents to fuck that girl when she's 15 and at the height of her beauty and vaginal tightness. It would show some appreciation for what they've produced, rather than just treating it like it's nothing, and not even worth partaking of when it's fully ripe and ready to be enjoyed.

"There are only about 15 magical years of womanhood, and the clock starts ticking when they're adolescents. Why would I want cheat myself, by denying myself some of the few years I could spend with a woman when her body will be in its youthful prime? That would make me a chump.

"In a free society, the only reservation I might have about going after 15-year-old girls is that maybe that's too old; maybe it would be better to start banging them when they're 12, 13, or 14. And I guarantee you, a lot of the men who say women that age don't interest them because they're too bright-eyed and bushy-tailed, and they prefer a more mature woman, would be going after those same teenagers if it were legal and socially accepted."

Nathan Larson analyzes the Biblical story of Adam and Eve

8 January 2018 — Catlett, Virginia — Neoreactionary libertarian congressional candidate Nathan Larson paused today to analyze the Biblical story of Adam and Eve.

And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him. And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

"Dating was so much easier back then," Larson noted. "You didn't have to worry about whether your approach at the bar was going to go down in flames in front of everyone, or whether she was going to cheat on you, or leave you for another man, or complain that you didn't have a 'real job,' or anything like that. You just traded in one of your ribs for a lifetime of pussy. And then all you have to do in return is not eat from that one tree? I'd sign up for that.

"That's how we men roll. It really doesn't take a lot to make us happy. We just need some weed (which I'm sure they had in the Garden, because it says in Genesis 1:29 Adam was given 'every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth') and a hot bitch, and we're content to just lie around the house all day getting high and fucking her. It's girls who always want to say, 'I'm bored, let's go somewhere' even when you're basically already in paradise.

"So you gotta drive someplace with her till you feel like your ass is about to fall asleep from sitting in the car so long, while she 'oohs' and 'aahs' at all the touristy sights around you and snaps photos for Facebook. The only advantage is that you get to take her to the hotel room and make her go 'ooh' and 'aah' some more, probably in a nicer bed than what you have at home.

And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

"I wish I were in the Garden with that girl; I'd push her down and get on top of her, and she'd be like, 'What are you doing??' and I'd be like, 'Well, I already gave you one of my bones earlier, so I figured I'd give you another.'

Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

"God, I wanna cleave unto that girl and be one flesh with her. She is so hot.

And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

"Nudism rocks. I have a whole collection of teenage nudism videos. Those girls aren't ashamed either.

Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

"That sales pitch for eating the fruit doesn't seem convincing to me at all, but she fell for it. This is the problem; whenever there's no man around to say, 'Honey, this sounds like a scam,' women will fall for the dumbest shit. They'll be like, 'Oh, well I got this email saying my sister was stranded in London without any money, so I got a cash advance and wired $3,000' while her husband is thinking, 'You idiot.'

"Anyway, I've always wondered how Eve induced Adam to eat the apple. Maybe she made a wager with him like in Cruel Intentions, and said that she bet that everything would be fine if he ate the apple. Probably Adam said, 'No way,' but then as he was walking away, Eve said, 'You can put it anywhere,' and that was what sealed the deal.

"I can't say I fault Adam too much; I mean, when you only have one girl in the whole world available to meet all your sexual needs, it's pretty easy to get pussy-whipped and fall into a habit of doing whatever she wants. The lesson is, don't try to bargain with your wife about what you need to do to get her sexual favors; just rape her up the ass if that's what you feel like doing. You'll save yourself a lot of headache, and get more of what you want, if you just behave in a dominant way and go caveman like that.

"And for god's sake, if she comments later, 'You raped me,' don't apologize. Just be like, 'Yes, and I enjoyed it' or maybe 'You liked that, didn't you, you little slut?' (which maybe will trigger her to go into her submissive mode and say, 'Yes, daddy' or something).

"That way, you spin what happened as a positive rather than a negative. If you feel pleased at what you did, rather than guilty about it, that means this relationship is producing good feelings for you, which is going to make you happier with her, which is going to benefit her. So, if you frame it that way, then her getting raped up the ass by you was actually a productive use of her time with you that allows for the bond between you to deepen as you feel that much more attached to her because of the pleasure her body gives you, and for a girl, that means she's making progress.

"I've also always wondered what would've happened if Eve had eaten the fruit but Adam hadn't. Would he have had to give up another rib to get a new girl after she was cast out of the Garden? Or would God have kicked him out of the Garden anyway, as punishment for not looking after his girl and keeping her out of trouble?

And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

"So don't ever let anyone tell you that kilts aren't manly.

And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.

"It probably sounded like a good idea at the time to blame God for what Eve did, but God's attitude was, 'No, you were supposed to keep your bitch in check. If you didn't, that's on you.'

Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

"The next time I'm holding a girl's hand at the hospital while she's having my kid, and she's crying out in pain and complaining, 'You did this to me!' I'm gonna be like, 'No, you did this to yourself, BITCH. It's all because of that damn apple.'

And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

"I would've been like, 'Yeah, whatever, big deal. I'm a man. I can invent technology. I'm gonna build tractors and tillers and combines and shit. I don't care about no thorns and thistles. Besides, that's what we have the black man for, to pull all those weeds for us while we sit around watching as wifey comes by in a sexy dress to serve us some pink lemonade. Just gotta wait till Genesis 9:25, when God institutes slavery.'

Unto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord God make coats of skins, and clothed them.

"If fur is murder, I guess that makes God a murderer."

And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

"So it sounds like basically all Adam needed to do, was first take fruit from the tree of life, and then eat that right after eating the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. That would've been a sweet loophole if he'd thought of it. Anyway, skipping ahead to 1 Timothy 2:

I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting. In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

"The Bible almost makes it sound like her having to stay silent is a punishment for Eve's transgression. But the way Paul means here is, women don't know what they're talking about, because if they were smart, they wouldn't have listened to that snake and eaten that apple.

Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

"That's probably why there are so many C-sections these days; women don't have those qualities anymore, so we had to come up with some other way to save them in childbearing."

7 January 2018 — Catlett, Virginia — Neoreactionary libertarian congressional candidate Nathan Larson today asked feminist girls, "Why is it so hard to accept that you were meant to be men's property?"

"In just about every way possible, men are superior, so it's clear we were meant to be women's owners and masters, rather than the other way around." Larson noted. "Even biology tells you that we were the ones whose role was to be the civilization builders, who came home at the end of the day to enjoy the women who were our sexual property. We grow beards to protect us from the elements, so that we can go out in the cold and in the sun to hunt mammoths and stuff. Starting in puberty, we have the privilege of growing sexy, masculine facial hair, while women have to wait till menopause before they can do that.

"We men also can pee wherever we want without having to sit down. We just whip it out and less than half a minute later, we're done. We don't have to create a big line to the bathroom. It's true that women usually take a shit faster than men, but men typically multitask during that time, pondering the mysteries of the universe. Men also have larger bladders than women. All in all, we're just better optimized to have more efficient excretory habits, especially when we're out in the wilderness, which is nature's way of saying that our time is more valuable than women's and that we were the ones meant to be going out there and hunting mammoths. During urination, we can even aim our penises in such a way as to write messages in the snow, maybe leaving a message informing fellow hunters in our tribe, 'Mammoths this way' so they can follow the arrow in search of their quarry.

"We don't have to worry about having ovaries that will dry up by the time we're around the ages of 35-45; our testes just keep producing viable sperm almost indefinitely. We can get married young and produce a set of kids, and then even as late as our 50s, start a whole new family with another young woman. It's awesome. We're not limited to having only one kid every nine months; we can produce an almost infinite numbers of offspring, as long as we can get sexual access to enough women.

"One might ask, 'Yeah, but how are you going to get that many women to open their legs to you?' That might be a concern if it weren't for the fact that, as men, we don't have to get the voluntary cooperation of the opposite sex; we can just rape them if we want. Women aren't able to so easily do that to men. Advantage: Men!

"Girls might argue, 'But your balls are on the outside of your body, where they're vulnerable to getting kicked or otherwise injured, while us ladies have our reproductive organs neatly tucked away inside.' The whole point of having our balls on the outside, though, is so that we can enjoy having girls, in addition to sucking on our penises, also teabag us. It's the same reason why girls have a clitoris on the outside of their bodies. It's so that they can be stimulated in more than one way. In contrast, stuff that's on the inside of the body, such as the G-spot, often requires a choice to be made, such as between penetrating fully all the way to the clitoris, or trying to hit the G-spot.

"One might argue, the female body is superior in that during sex, the girl can experience both clitoral and vaginal stimulation while the man only has penile stimulation, but so what? The man still is going to be able to ejaculate pretty much every time, while girls aren't always going to be able to reach orgasm, and by the time they do, he might have already come and therefore not even be hard anymore, so that her vaginal contractions at the time of her orgasm might squeeze his penis all the way out of her, ruining her orgasm, unless he specifically held himself back from coming to give her an opportunity to come first. In short, men are guaranteed satisfaction every time, while women don't really get the same guarantee unless men go out of their way to ensure it. Advantage: Men!

"Obviously nature cared more about our getting off than about women's, which shows that nature loved us more and treated us as the favored child. I can only assume that's just because nature considered us that much more awesome and deserving of special benefits.

"Nature also said, 'On top of all that, I'm gonna also make women the ones whose crotches have to bleed several days a month until they hit menopause, and then after they hit menopause, I'm going to give them hot flashes. Oh, and I'm also going to give them tender breasts during pregnancy, and make their feet swell up, and give them permanent stretch marks all over their abdominal and chest areas; and then I'm going to require them during childbirth to squeeze out the head of a baby through a hole that under normal circumstances might be so tight as to not even allow the head of a penis to pass through easily without lubrication; and in this way I will cause approximately 75 percent of women post vaginal birth to have some degree of trauma to their labia, vaginal walls, or perineum.' Probably at the time these decisions were being made, someone argued, 'Geez, Nature, doesn't this border on being sadistically misogynistic?' but apparently nature was hell-bent on being a hardcore shitlord like that.

"Probably the way the conversation went, was that Nature explained to the skeptics, 'I want to heap a whole bunch of debilitating biological inconveniences upon women, so that they realize that their role is just to hang around the home and be men's sexual objects, rather than try to go out and do what men do. If at some point in the future a civilization were to arise, and women were to be, for example, employed in the work world, it would be impossible for them to even have a baby and give him the proper care and attention he needs without going on a lengthy maternity leave and disrupting the entire office's workflow for months by their absence. As a result of this, either women will accept that their biology forces them to stay out of the workforce; or they will be unable to have enough kids to replenish the population, which will cause the whole species to go extinct.

"Nature continued, 'I want to completely eliminate any possibility of girls' getting confused about what their role and place is in the hierarchy of the sexes, by making their bodies give them constant reminders that that they are the weaker sex, and that their main purpose for existing on this earth is to have lots of babies. Just to reinforce that, I'm also going to give young men a ravenous sexual appetite for nubile girls, so that it becomes impossible for those girls not to become aware that they're valued by men more for sex (and consequent childbearing) than anything else.'

"Almost all of the great scientists, the great inventors, and other thinkers, are men. There's just no end to the number of ways in which men are superior, so rather than even try to list them all, I'm just going to stop now.

"Women just have a few offsetting advantages, one of the most notable of which is the fact that it feels really awesome to be in their pussies. The amount of pleasure and happiness they're able to bring to men's lives through sex is so great as to go a long way toward justifying their existence by itself, but then they're also able to bear and nurture children. So important is their role that Adolf Hitler wrote about his mother, 'Though expected, her death came as a terrible blow to me. I respected my father, but I loved my mother.'

"One has to wonder, why don't feminist girls just focus on serving mankind in the ways that would make the most effective use of their talents, viz., being a loyal and faithful wife to a good man, and giving him sex and babies? It seems like it would be a lot easier. It wouldn't be necessary to wake up early in the morning to rush to the university or to work. Yeah, the babies would cry in the middle of the night, but so what; you can go right back to sleep after tending to the kiddos, and at any rate, breastfeeding is an opportunity to get sexually aroused, so if you're wanting to explore your sexuality, you could do that with your own kid rather than getting pumped and dumped by Chad in a college dorm room. Your kid probably won't discard you like Chad will. You won't have to worry about the emotional bond you form with your kid producing that same kind of heartache, in all likelihood.

"That's a rhetorical question, though -- the reason they don't do it, is that they don't know what's good for them, or they can't respect men who give them a choice rather than making the choice for them, which is why men just have to force it upon them. Fortunately, a lot of feminist girls are virgins, so maybe there's still hope for them. Can't wait till the revolution!"

Nathan Larson asks the Jews, "Why do you keep describing Mein Kampf as turgid and poorly-written?"

7 January 2018 — Catlett, Virginia — Neoreactionary libertarian congressional candidate Nathan Larson today asked the Jews, "Why do you keep describing Mein Kampf as turgid and poorly-written?"

"I suspect you just say that because you don't want people to read it," Larson remarked. "In reality, there's nothing wrong with Hitler's prose. He's not all that bombastic. He has a grand vision, which many people these days are inclined to distrust because it smacks of central planning; but what do you expect? He had aspirations of being a world leader and trying to effect change by putting forth a coherent plan. One of the benefits of having a comprehensive worldview (aka weltanschauung) is that it makes it easier to examine how all the parts fit together so you can look for any contradictions that might suggest you made an error. This planet would probably be a better place if we had more people with the will and the heart to use their gifts to accomplish great dreams.

"At the time that Hitler wrote Mein Kampf, Germany was in trouble. They needed someone to unite them around a plan by which they would throw off the bondage imposed on them by the international community after World War I, and take their proper role in the world as a great power. This was not only for the benefit of Germans, but for the whole world, because the Aryan race is indispensable to mankind's progress. As Hitler pointed out, 'On this planet of ours human culture and civilization are indissolubly bound up with the presence of the Aryan. If he should be exterminated or subjugated, then the dark shroud of a new barbarian era would enfold the earth.'

"Another subtle Jewish lie is that Hitler was, as Ludwig von Mises put it in Human Action, 'A dark-haired man whose bodily features by no means fitted the prototype of the fair-haired Aryan master race'. Hitler's hair really wasn't all that dark. Most people also probably think he had brown eyes. Nope, he had blue eyes. Nor was he all that short; 5'9" may not seem all that tall by today's standards, but Joseph Stalin and Winston Churchill were only 5'6".

"So, stop with the lies. Or, since you're not able to stop lying, at least don't be so obvious about it. The goyim know what you're up to, and the days when non-Jewish whites were afraid to call out and expose you for fear of being labeled antisemitic are over."

Nathan Larson notes that girls are a distraction when they get involved in male activities, including libertarian politics

7 January 2018 — Catlett, Virginia — Neoreactionary libertarian congressional candidate Nathan Larson noted today that girls are a distraction when they get involved in male activities, including libertarian politics.

"Girls, from a young age, tend to be somewhat fascinated with male activities," Larson noted. "The reason is that boys are usually creating some kind of interesting spectacle in which they are exploring or building or destroying something together, or struggling with one another for dominance.

"Girls have their own worlds, usually much more orderly and clean than the worlds that boys create (in which there's always something under construction, or some tumultuous conflict going on). Therefore, the two worlds tend to not be compatible. When boys and girls play together, what's usually going to happen is that if the girls are, say, playing Barbie, the boy is going to get bored at some point with all this socializing and homemaking that the characters are doing and want to introduce a toy dinosaur into the mix to tear everything apart. The girls could, if they wanted, bring in some G.I. Joes to defend Barbie and Ken from the tyrannosaur attack, but that's not really how they roll. Those girls probably don't have any G.I. Joes on hand in their toy box, and they didn't have in mind that this was going to be a game of Jurassic Park, so what will end up happening is that they yell for dad to get him to stop ruining their game, and forthwith the boy is expelled from their world and told to go play outside or something and stop causing trouble.

"It's much easier for girls to be a part of boys' worlds, than it is for boys to be a part of girls' worlds. A girl can bring her favorite girl character into the boys' play world, and it can theoretically do whatever the boys' characters do. Barbie has more than 150 careers on her resume. She can be a pilot, a police officer, an astronaut, or anything else that the boys' characters do. Even though a real woman might not be as good in those roles as a man, and the girl who's playing that character might not be able to come up with scenarios that are interesting as what a boy could come up with, she can play at it passably enough that they can suspend their disbelief.

"But G.I. Joe can never become a housewife and have babies, as Barbie could, because he doesn't have the biological equipment. The only way that G.I. Joe could really fit into girl world is if the kids were playing a sexualized game in which G.I. Joe is the Chad whom all the girl characters want to fuck because they're impressed with his strength, recognized achievements, social dominance, promising military career, etc. (If you've been around kids who became aware of sex at a young age, you may have noticed, they actually do play with their toys like that, coming up with sexual scenarios for the characters to play out.)

"Girls feel a sense of superiority over boys because their world is tidier and prettier, and everything unpleasant or weird is banished. It's all sugar and spice and everything nice, instead of snips and snails and puppy-dog tails. But there are a few problems with this world, underneath the seemingly calm and harmonious exterior. It turns out that although the girls' world doesn't involve a lot of physical violence, the girls are capable of being emotionally ruthless with one another, and hurt one another with words. Girls will try to rise to the top of the social ladder by bragging about their own merits and those of their families, and put others down and trash their reputations. The rivalry can at times become cutthroat to the point of causing severe damage. The measurement of success as a girl is to conform successfully to society's expectations, by being pretty and stylish, having successful men in their family, etc. It foreshadows a later competition for status among women in which they brag about how they were able to attract a better husband than other girls.

"What ends up happening is that there will be some girl who just can't make it in girl world. Maybe she's not pretty, so she gets teased by the other girls for how she looks. Maybe her family can't afford to buy her stylish clothes, so the other girls make fun of what she wears. Maybe she didn't have a mommy or older sister around who taught her girly ways. Maybe she was surrounded by brothers as her companions, and learned to try to fit into their world so she could play with them. Maybe her father didn't have a son, and yearning for that male companionship and to be able to pass on the masculine culture of his family, he raised her as he would have raised a boy. He instilled in her the values that a boy would need, such as being resourceful and tenacious, and dressed her up in boys' clothes and made her look like a boy and told her to be proud of the kinds of accomplishments that men strive for. Whatever the reason, this girl who didn't fit into girl world becomes a tomboy, and seeks to succeed in the world by the standards of men.

"What often happens, though, even in the absence of a tomboy, is that girls will run out of ideas for their own games, and say, 'I'm bored, let's go see what the boys are doing.' If it's just a sports game they're involved in, where the rules and structure are well-defined in advance, then boys usually won't mind having the girls around as spectators. They may even enjoy showing off to them. There isn't really any risk of losing face, other than for performing poorly.

"But if the boys are playing any kind of game that involves coming up with scenarios and rules and other creative ideas as they go along, then they will typically try to rid the area of these guests by saying, 'Get lost! No girls allowed,' because they know that having a bunch of female spectators around is going to distract and disrupt from any kind of organically evolving play. The name of the game in girl world is social conformity, while in boys' world, boys gain respect among their peers for coming up with something new and daring and interesting, which is the opposite of social conformity. There is always a risk of failure in putting forth any new idea, and having girls around, giggling and whispering with one another in the background, as a source of further ridicule and loss of face for anything the boys do that turns out to be silly, is going to inhibit the putting forth of new ideas. Out of self-respect, then, and a desire to encourage innovative play, the boys expel the girls from their midst.

"The tomboy is different than these idle spectators. She shows up to the boys' game and demands to not only watch but participate. The first impulse of the boys is usually to say, 'Get out,' because they know that she is not going to be able to play at their level, and therefore will just be in the way of what they're trying to do. But she has nowhere else to go, so she pretty much forces herself upon them. And they eventually say, 'Whatever' and treat her as one of the boys, albeit a weaker, slower, and less creative boy. They cut her no slack for being a girl, but apply the same standards to her they'd apply to a boy; and if she can take it in the same spirit that they'd expect of a boy, then maybe she gets to stay.

"When boys and girls are forced onto the same field in coed teams to play some game like soccer or Capture the Flag that involves a mix of strength, teamwork, and strategic and tactical skill, usually what you will see happen is that the boys will confidently go forth trusting in their superior strength, while the girls on the opposing team will deploy psychological tactics to, say, lure them into a situation where they'll be vulnerable. This can even happen in, say, a chess match, in which the boy confidently thinks he's going to win because he has spent time studying chess strategies; and seeing the girl's defenses seeming to collapse, he moves forth aggressively, as she sits across the chessboard speaking and acting as though she is resigned to her impending defeat and just wants to get it over with.

"Then he finds out it was just a ruse, as suddenly she counterattacks in a way he hadn't expected; and it's checkmate. Thus he discovers that girls are capable of prevailing sometimes just by putting on an act to manipulate men's thoughts and emotions in such a way that they are enticed into lowering their defenses. This now becomes a new and interesting battleground that he hadn't expected having to play on, and he must learn how it works and master it as well. In the manosphere, we call this 'game'.

"What will often happen also is that when a boy and girl are forced into each other's company and have no one else to talk to, the boy will horseplay with her as he would with other boys, and she will perhaps horseplay back; and any onlookers will interpret this as flirting because in adults, men and women touching each other is usually a demonstration of affection and sexual interest, in which their playfulness foreshadows sexual play in the bedroom. In adults, the confident and playful way in which he touches her in ways that provoke her without annoying her signals that he will bring that same qualities to their lovemaking, making it fun for them. In both the child and adult worlds, when she horseplays back rather than telling him to stop, that is a sign that she likes (or at least doesn't object too much to) what he's doing. The prepubescent boy is unaware of the perceived sexual undertone to all this, and when adults tease him, 'Is that your girlfriend?' he is quick to say, 'No! Girls are yucky' and push her away.

"So, before puberty, boys are the ones to reject girls; they decline the girls' invitations to play house, for instance, because that's for girls and the boys would mock him if they saw him doing it. After all, playing house with a girl doesn't involve the level of skill, ingenuity, strength, etc. that the boys' games involve, so it's like chickening out of the more challenging boys' world to go play at something easier. It makes him a 'pussy'.

"This is the same reason why in the adult world, men who decide to be a househusband and stay-at-home dad aren't respected; people know that it's easier than going out and making a living, so he seems like less of a man for accepting that role. Not only that, but he probably won't perform it as well as woman could, because men usually don't have that same attention to detail that women have, that makes them such good homemakers and caregivers. While men may have some male strength to help them, say, handle emergencies in a reassuring way, they typically don't have the same emotional intelligence that women have that makes them such capable nurturers and comforters.

"Beautiful young women always have the advantage that, despite whatever else they may lack, they still have a pleasure- and babymaking resource between their legs that men want. Men can provide adequately, without the help of women, for all of their other needs, but they have to turn to women when they want pussy. So, even if a couple isn't getting along, the man can always think, 'Yes, but I enjoy being in her pussy.' That is what keeps him with her. (Well, that and the kids they have together, of which her pussy is also the source.)

"A woman doesn't need to have interests of her own to make a man want to be around her, because men have their own interests to engage them. For this reason, what men are most interested in women for is their pussies. It is in their nature to be the dominant sex who is the bringer of ideas to the relationship that she then adopts as her own. To the extent that a man has no interests of his own, he becomes pathetic, because he has nothing to interest or entertain her with, causing her life to become dull since she doesn't have ideas of her own; and his penis is nowhere near as sought-after as her pussy, since women can go anywhere to find a penis they can jump on. Men want to own a relatively undefiled girl's pussy and defend it from other men, which therefore limits the availability of pussy, while there are so many thirsty men out there, and Chad is capable of satisfying so many women, that penis is relatively abundant and therefore nothing special.

"It is by a man's ability to be socially dominant, and/or bring home money that she would not want to have to earn on her own, that a married couple can get through their troubles by her saying, 'He's so fuckin' annoying at times, I would leave his ass, but he's a good provider and he has a status in the world that bolsters my own reputation and standing by being the one he chose to be his wife.' His boldness and competence in the world may also very well carry over into the sexual realm, giving her enjoyment there as well. And also, during those times when her impulsiveness would make her want to leave him even if it's not in her best interests to do so, his power enables him to keep her in the marriage by force so that she remains his property; and in this way, the stability of the home for the good of the children and the rest of the family is secured.

"What happens when boys and girls hit puberty is that suddenly the roles are reversed. He is no longer the one rejecting her for being 'just a girl' and therefore unworthy of his companionship because she can't do what boys do; but rather, she now has something he wants, and she will be judging him based on his own performance in the world of men. Now he would actually like to play house with her, if it would make her happy so that he could get her pussy. The source of anxiety (and eventually, perhaps pain) for him is that he knows the girls he wants will give their pussies to one man or another; it's just a question of which, and they might choose someone other than him.

"In contrast, when he said 'no girls allowed' as a prepubescent boy, it was a blanket statement applying to all girls (or at least all non-tomboys), so there was nothing personal about it. It is personal, though, when a girl chooses one boy over another to have sex with. There's no getting around that. A new kind of competition among men for status emerges, which is that of being able to get pussy; although really it is just largely based on the same rivalry to be the 'coolest' by showing superior performance, style, etc. that existed all along. The beta boys, though they have potential to be providers someday (perhaps in some cases even better providers than Chad, as in the case of tech billionaires), cannot yet compete effectively on this playing field, and so they go without pussy and are taunted for being virgins.

"Distraught betas turn to the women in their life for advice on how to get pussy, and they are told, 'Just be a nice guy and eventually you'll find someone.' They tell him that young girls may make silly choices, in going for the bad boys, but some quality girl will eventually recognize what he has to offer. He is unaware, at this point, of the problems that tend to arise from marrying one of these older, post-carousel girls who praise their own virtues of being 'mature' enough to value a good man and 'sexually experienced' enough to know what they're doing in the bedroom.

"So what happens when girls join libertarian organizations? Involvement in a political organization is like one of those loosely-structured, organically evolving games that boys used to play at, which they forbid girls from joining because as participants, girls weren't good enough players, and as spectators, would be an unwelcome distraction, causing the boys to feel self-conscious and inhibited. Except this time, the girls are welcomed in, partly because libertarian men want to seem like they aren't a bunch of nerds whose organizations are massive sausagefests that don't attract any women. It seems to escape these men that if they want to prove they can attract women, the proper way to do that is to get a housewife and maybe bring her around to party functions as arm candy. Women don't actually need to be officers of the organization.

"Even if women are attracted to the organization and take on leadership positions, that still doesn't prove that the men in the organization aren't a bunch of kissless virgins. It is totally possible for a man to be around a bunch of women yet not get any sex. It happens all the time; that's how it is in public school, for instance, where boys sit right next to girls they will never get to fuck.

"What happens when women enter the organization is something similar to what happened in the Clean-Up episode of Death Note, when a bunch of money was dropped on the crowd from helicopters to distract them from their task. When valuable unowned property appears, people tend to want to drop whatever else they're doing to grab at it and make it their own.

"Women showing up to libertarian organizations are basically like unowned or abandoned property that the men around them would like to find some way to appropriate for themselves. They don't even have to be particularly attractive women, because these men are usually so blue-pilled they don't realize that women are like chameleons who can adjust to match the ideas of whatever man they want. These men think that a libertarian woman is some kind of great prize, when really, just about any woman could probably be turned into a libertarian woman if she had a libertarian husband she respected.

"Because women, especially attractive women, tend to value social conformity, what we will usually see happen is that these 'libertarian' women take a conservative approach (conservative in the sense of not being daring) in which they advance an agenda that is not much different than what the mainstream parties want. The men around them will do the same, seeking to placate them by accommodating their sensibilities, so as not to alienate them or be ridiculed by them (which would cause them to lose face, since being judged unfavorably by a woman, especially an attractive woman, will often cause a man to lose face, unless he just doesn't care and is going to stick to his guns to prove he's a man with some balls, and thereby someday perhaps attract a woman on that basis, by showing his power to take a firm stand and move the world, rather than being moved by it).

"In this way, we see a sorry spectacle in which the party's agenda gets watered down, and it ceases to hold anyone's interest. The more hardcore libertarian men drift away (or are expelled) and all we have left are weak men and some women (typically either slutty, or of low attractiveness; or both, perversely enough) they may spend time trying to appease but will never get to bang. Or if they were somehow to ever get to marry them, it would likely be after those girls were well past their prime, and probably post-carousel; and they would probably get divorce-raped in the end.

"Once a tomboy hits puberty, she's no longer a tomboy. Once her body starts to develop womanly curves (or even if she stays flat as a board; it doesn't matter, she's still going to give off that feminine vibe) and other feminine characteristics, and men around her start to perceive that she is a sexually mature female who is ready to make babies, they're going to treat her differently than they would treat a man. Suddenly, even if she's not competent at their work or play, they are still always going to be wanting to find a way to win her favor because they want her pussy. The only exception would be if she's utterly sexually repulsive, but there aren't really a lot of girls like that, and usually they end up becoming neurotic, so you don't necessarily want them hanging around anyway.

"There are some older women in the Party as well, who are past or almost past their reproductive years, and we might ask, why not just treat them as men, especially if they act kinda tomboyish? The problem is, I still kinda want to bang some of those women, and probably so do a lot of other men in the Party. The tomboy is an appealing archetype. Men would love to have a woman around whom they could not only have sex with, but who would be able to converse with him on his level on topics he's interested in (rather than just listening half-interestedly at best without having much to add). They would even be willing to relax their usual standards with regard to her appearance if they could have that. The holy grail for men would be able to find a woman who's both a feminine lover and a masculine friend, all wrapped into one. But that's a pretty elusive unicorn. There may be reported sightings of it, just like people report seeing Bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster, but as yet I haven't seen any confirmed sightings that didn't turn out to be fake.

"So, these women will continue to have more of an influence in the Party than they really should, given their level of accomplishment (or lack thereof), as men are attracted to hang around them because they're sexually fascinated by them and wish they could get in their pants, but will settle for just being in their presence and being their 'friend' and ally. Now, one might argue, that's those men's fault for being beta cucks. I don't really care whose fault it is. I just care that it goes on, and will always go on as long as those girls are around. Those men are not going to change and stop having the tendency to do that; they're hardwired for it. So, if those girls want to be useful, they should go be the housewife of a libertarian man and be the girl who gives him a morale boost by taking care of him at the end of a hard day fighting against the statists, when he says, 'It's so hard being a libertarian sometimes' and by her actions she responds, 'I still love you and believe in you,' by fixing him dinner and sucking his dick and giving him other affection to make him feel wanted by someone even when the world so often seems like it doesn't want his ideas.

"What's more, because these women have taken on a masculine role by getting involved in politics (which is normally a battlefield in which men fight with one another for control over resources, ultimately with the goal of getting access to pussy, since that's what a lot of the struggle among men for power boils down to), their views on relations between the sexes will tend to be distorted, as we saw with Ayn Rand who, although she chose to have masculine heroes be the focal point of her novels, still also included implausible scenarios of the hero's wanting to marry an older, sluttier, more opinionated woman rather than some cuter, younger, more virginal girl. Since it was a woman writing the novels, she indulged her fantasies of the female characters' behaving hypergamously and getting away with it; but I'm sure that in real life, a truly red pill Howard Roark would have kicked Dominique Francon to the curb after other penises went in her and John Galt would not have been interested in Dagny Taggart after her romance with Hank Rearden. Or if they had still been interested in those ladies, they would have at least had enough self-respect to give them a less favored status in their lives than younger brides they would take as virgins.

"So we see, for example, that libertarian women are usually not really supportive of the idea of men marrying young girls. If asked their opinion on the topic, they might feel compelled to support legalizing it, for the sake of ideological consistency with libertarian principles; but that doesn't mean they will offer social approval to men's practicing such behavior or believe the culture should advocate it. Why would they; those girls are in competition with them for male attention. I, on the other hand, as a man who likes his sexual privileges and wouldn't necessarily mind messing around with a cheerful and playful and loving little girl, am totally supportive of such marriages.

"Also, women are not big fans of personal sacrifice, unless it's the kind of personal sacrifice that society approves of. Did any woman thank me for threatening the President of the United States? No; the only person who ever thanked me for that was Pete Eyre. It figures. Personal sacrifice is just so foreign to girls' world that they can't even appreciate it when a man takes on that burden. But this is nothing new; in the manosphere they've been talking about women's lack of appreciation for what men have to do to make their lives comfortable for awhile now.

"Why don't we see more libertarian women taking notice of, and doing something about, the fact that there are libertarian men who have done a lot for the Party yet feel suicidal because they don't have a girlfriend? Some of those men get demoralized to the point they feel it's hard to unleash their full potential.

"Girls, libertarian or not, don't care much about that. They just want a man who's strong enough to fight his demons on his own and take what he needs from the world, including women. That's why these libertarian men need to take the red pill and join with incels to seize women by force, the way they'd appropriate any other property that was unowned and waiting to be taken and made use of by someone who wants it.

"Libertarian men are usually the exact demographic, viz. intelligent heterosexual non-Jewish white men, that my campaign is intended to help rise to dominance in this world. So I'm all in favor of their taking those libertarian girls by force, dragging them home by their hair if necessary, to throw them down on the bed and homestead their pussies through occupation and mixing with their labor. Stop being a cuck, and instead put a ring on her finger and a baby in her belly to claim her as your own. It's the neoreactionary libertarian way."

Nathan Larson lays out his views on female politicians and "activists," aka YouTube and social media whores stars

6 January 2018 — Catlett, Virginia — Neoreactionary libertarian congressional candidate Nathan Larson today laid out his views on female politicians and "activists," aka YouTube and social media whores stars.

"There seem to be some journalists and bloggers who assume that, because I'm a patriarchist, I would be opposed to women serving in high public office," Larson noted. "Actually, it really doesn't bother me (although I tend to share Ayn Rand's sentiments on the topic of women serving in the Presidency). I enjoy when attractive women get involved in politics and serve as eye candy on the TV screen, although I lament the tragic waste of women like Christine O'Donnell who apparently never got married or had kids.

"(I wouldn't have minded impregnating her back when she was in her prime; we probably could have made some beautiful babies, but sadly, the problem with these high-status women is that usually they think they're too good for any of the men around them, who seem like losers in comparison to someone so accomplished; and at any rate, back in the 2000s, the study of how to game such girls was not really as far advanced as it is today, when we have communities of men discussing how to game every conceivable category of girl imaginable.) At least Nikki Haley got married by her mid-20s and had a couple kids.

"But if feminists think that I'm going to sit around and gnash my teeth in anger that women are getting elected to Congress or appointed to State Department ambassadorships, they must think patriarchists conceive their fight against feminists as a war between the sexes, in which women's successes represent a defeat for them because it means women are that much closer to achieving equality or even supremacy. That's not really how we look at it.

"Women can make whatever advances they want in whatever arena, but at the end of the day, it doesn't matter, because by the time women have made one stride forward to try to catch up to men, men have made three strides to leave them even further in the dust, because that's just how we roll. While girls were playing with Barbies, we were pulling apart clocks to see how they worked. While girls were gossiping with their friends about who has the hots for whom, we were reading encyclopedias and teaching ourselves to program computers.

"Girls might say that they developed more advanced social skills, but who cares? Boys were practicing their own form of social skills, by roughhousing with one another until they were told to go outside; after which they put on camouflage to play war games in the back yard. Boys were also fascinated from with every kind of weapon from the get-go. Obviously, men are better equipped to be able to win any fight between the sexes that comes down to the use of physical force.

"The only advantage girls ever had was that they had something boys wanted, once they hit puberty. Because girls were given freedom to decide whether to have sex and with whom to have sex, they wielded an awesome power, and pretty girls soon learned that they could humiliate boys by publicly rejecting them, or control them like puppets by holding out even a hint of possible sex in the future. The power went to their heads, and as silly beta cucks tried to gain their favor by showering them with compliments and every form of assistance they could ever need, their egos got inflated even more, to the point that they thought their pussies made them superior to men, because what else could explain why they had men wrapped around their little fingers?

"But who really cares about those thots? The girls we patriarchists want, and have always wanted, are young girls, who still have sweet personalities that haven't yet been ruined by bitterness from heartbreak from failed romances, nor hardened by their being called upon to compete with men on the playing fields in which men historically have striven with one another for dominance. If a 58-year-old woman wants to run for Congress, that's no loss to us. Our eyes were already wandering over to the 13-year-olds, of which there's a fresh crop rising to nubility every day. Actually, we never stopped looking at them. How could we? There's so beautiful.

"Women of every age are subject to being influenced by men. They depend on men to entertain them, make them laugh, tell them interesting stories, be someone they can lean on in times of trouble, etc. And in the arena of politics, most female leaders are only successful because of their male relatives.

"Probably every legislative idea which Barbara Comstock ever put forth came from a man. She's a figurehead whose role is mostly to take political actions suggested by the various men in her life, such as her advisors, or Republican Party leaders. (Why do you think she won't hold town halls? Women aren't really known for having the courage to get up in front of a hostile audience and defend ideas on their own, without any of their white knights around to rescue them if needed.)

"You won't find too many original ideas being come up with by women, because every new idea has to start out as a the thought of one individual, and women are more social, not really inclined to sit around by themselves thinking deeply, especially about ideas that might deviate from those already accepted by society.

"Their interests are not usually passions of the kind that men have, but more like pastimes. They don't explore on their own; they wait for men to show them what has already been explored, so they can be awed by the wonders of the universe and by what man has been able to accomplish. Men can hang around the house all day working on their creations and never get bored, while women feel the need to go out and travel and see what has already been created by others. The essence of femininity is submission, which complements the male drive for dominance.

"Women will typically view men as losers who aren't able to 'make something of themselves' by worldly standards. That's because they never had to carry the kinds of burdens that men are loaded with, of having to be the ones who put everything on the line for the good of their society. There were a few feminists, like Victoria Woodhull and Kitty Marion, who made great sacrifices for their causes, but they're few and far between.

"I think of a Libertarian Party member like Jacqueline Passey Mason, who drafted a resolution to kick me out of the Party, and think, 'How did you earn the right to be on that committee and sit in judgment over me? What sacrifices have you made for your beliefs? Did you spend 46 months in prison for standing up for your ideals? Did you run for office on any kind of platform that was daring enough in its challenge to the establishment that you would have trouble finding a job afterward?' No, she probably did not made those sacrifices, and probably nor did any of her comrades on that committee.

"And I would add also, that they made a big deal about the need to get rid of sexists from the Party because the Party values its female members. What about the male members? Aren't they more valuable? When I count up the number of Libertarians who have run for public office, I see way more men than women among that number. Men are more likely to step forward and show real leadership that goes beyond sitting on a committee.

"This is why I'm not intimidated by women's getting elevated to high positions. Just because they can hold the office doesn't mean they are capable of exercising true leadership in the way that a man might, by taking the kinds of risks and making the kinds of personal sacrifices that men make every day for the good of their country.

"The female 'leaders' of our time are nowhere near the caliber of those who came before them. They can't hold a candle to, say, a Susan B. Anthony or a Kate Heffelfinger. They may talk about being strong and independent women, but they never knew the struggle of being jailed, held down, force-fed, and subjected to everything else the suffragists to endure. I don't even agree with the cause of female suffrage, and I think those women would have been better off becoming wives and mothers, but I will say that the courage and commitment they demonstrated for their cause exceeded what most men will devote to any cause.

"So yes, the men of this generation are so weak that they're not even equal to the women of 100 years ago; but the women of this generation are weaker still, and always will be.

"I don't really care if the typical modern woman thinks she's strong for being able to work and raise kids at the same time. She wasn't strong enough to stay in a relationship and try to make it work, as opposed to dumping her husband and becoming a single mom. I don't really care either if women think they're superior to men for being able to graduate college in greater numbers and fit into the corporate world better and be more popular on social media. Men are still the pioneers who come up with the thoughts that are taught in the schools and build the corporations and write the social media apps.

"And as far as pretty girls' thinking they're superior because they have something between their legs that every man wants, I roll my eyes at that, because even those girls are as desperate for the attention of Chads as betas are for sexual favors from those girls. Alphas outrank women in the socio-sexual hierarchy. The highest-status men in this world will always be above the highest-status women.

"And guess what, even if it were true, as feminists claim, that 1 in 5 women is raped or sexually assaulted, that would just mean that 1 in 5 women finds out the hard way that what they think they can hold over men's heads and use to play keep-away with them for their own amusement, taunting them by holding it just out of reach like Tantalus's branch of fruit, men are capable of taking by force."

Nathan Larson proposes reuniting families that have split up

6 January 2018 — Catlett, Virginia — Neoreactionary libertarian congressional candidate Nathan Larson proposed reuniting families that have split up.

"There's an epidemic of women leaving their husbands and then raising their kids without a strong father figure," Larson noted. "However, the U.S. Constitution provides a solution. Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3 states:

No person held to service or labour in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labour, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labour may be due.

"This suggests that if wives have taken their children and gone with them across state lines to try to 'start a new life' (which, in most cases, doesn't turn out well for women, because the grass isn't really greener on the other side), they can be returned to their husbands. Some may say that chattel slavery was repealed by the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, but that amendment does contain a loophole (emphasis added):

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

"This means that if a law is passed criminalizing a wife's leaving her husband, then an arrest warrant can be issued against any woman who does this. In accordance with the Extradition Clause, she can be sent back to the state from which she fled, and stand trial in state court for being a fugitive wife. Upon conviction, a judgment can be imposed ordering that she be returned to her husband. Once the family is reunited, she can then fulfill her duties as a wife and mother, having sex with her husband and taking care of their home and helping raise the kids. And in this way, the husband can be relieved from his heartache at losing his wife, and the kids can be spared the fate that would have befallen them of growing up in a broken home."

Nathan Larson explains what wives mean when they tell their husbands, "You don't love me, you just use me for sex" or "You're a sex addict" or "You're obsessed with sex" or "You sexually abused me"

6 January 2018 — Catlett, Virginia — Neoreactionary libertarian congressional candidate Nathan Larson explained today what wives mean when they tell their husbands "You don't love me, you just use me for sex" or "You're a sex addict" or "You're obsessed with sex" or "You sexually abused me".

"Some wives might call their husband a sex addict because they don't like that he's going out and pursuing other women," Larson noted. "Obviously the solution there is for the husband to stick to his guns and insist on his right to be polygynous, and even bring these women into the home to be part of the family and take a place in his rotation, if he so wishes.

"But more typically what's going on when she makes these kinds of statements, is that you're trying to get sexual favors from her, which she doesn't want to give you; and she's trying to spin the conflict between you as being your fault for being overly sexually demanding rather than her fault for not putting out. Your task then is to find out the root cause of why she isn't feeling attracted to you, so you can take the appropriate action. If you decide the relationship is salvageable, and therefore go the route of trying to address the situation by manifesting strength as a man in ways that will meet her needs, that should include standing firm in demanding the sex you are entitled to as her husband. Aside from whatever else may be going wrong in the relationship, letting her push you around could be a further reason for her viewing you as weak and therefore losing attraction and not wanting to have sex with you.

"Girls never make these kinds of comments when they're in the phase of relationship when they're in deeply in love with their man to the point that they're just as obsessed (maybe more so) with him as he is with her. You could be talking 24/7 about how badly you want to have sex with her and she wouldn't mind. Her only complaint would be that you're turning her on and frustrating her, if you're not in a situation where you can have sex right away.

"In that situation, your desire for her is good in her eyes, because she wants to be with you and she's glad in a way that you're into her as much as she's into you, because it makes her feel secure. The desire for sex may spur you toward romantic gestures, like writing her a love letter or whatever, which talks about the many qualities (sexual and non-sexual) you love about her and the future you want to have with her, but still, your mind keeps returning to sex. When you tell her you're wanting to do everything you can to be with her as soon as possible (e.g. help her cross however many thousand miles are between you, if you're in a long-distance relationship), so you can finally be having sex, she's thinking of that in the context of, the day when she embraces you at the airport and you take her home for sex will also be the beginning of your doing a lot of other stuff together, which is true; you don't mind doing that other stuff with her any more than she minds having sex with you, even if her focus is more on the other stuff and your focus is more on sex.

"If she's really in love with you as much as you are with her, she wants to please you by doing what you want just as much as you want to please her by doing what she wants. You both want a relationship, and she perhaps devotes more of her thoughts to the non-sexual aspects than you do, but the fact that what's getting you most excited is the potential for sex doesn't actually bother her, really, at that point, no matter how much you bring it up, just like her bringing up all the different non-sexual stuff she wants to do with you doesn't really bother you either. As far as you're concerned, if going on a trip to visit her family with her makes her feel happy and in love with you for being a guy who creates pleasant experiences with her, so that she'll cheerfully open her legs for you and make you happy too, those desires of hers are good.

"When she's into you, even if your interest in wanting to be with her seems at times to be primarily sexual because that's the thought that gets your blood pumping and inspires you to overcome obstacles to make the relationship possible, she will not make a direct accusation, 'You just want me for sex' or 'You're obsessed with sex.' If you make comments like, 'I can't wait to be with you so we can have sex,' she will say, 'Me too -- so much!' Or if you even stumble over your words and accidentally say, 'I can't wait to have a relationship with you, so we can have sex,' which makes it sound like that's all you want her for, she might say, 'Of course there are many other things we can do together as well,' but she won't go so far as to point-blank accuse you of just wanting her body, and it won't make her reconsider whether she wants to be with you. You could be talking almost nonstop about sex, sex, sex, sex, sex, always bringing the conversation back to sex, and expressing your ravenous appetite to be inside her, and her only complaint will be, 'God, you're turning me on,' as she puts her hand down her panties to get off on fulfilling the fantasy in her imagination.

"Even when you're together, and there are times when you approach her for sex and she tells you she isn't in the mood and asks if you can wait till later, if you accept this without complaining about her not doing what you wanted, she won't accuse you of being a sex addict or just wanting her for sex. It's only when there starts to be a conflict in which you're telling her she should give you sex whenever you approach her for it, that she counters with 'You just want me for sex' or 'You're a sex addict' or 'You're obsessed with sex' to shift the conversation to the topic of your allegedly excessive sexual expectations, and away from the topic of her not wanting to fulfill her role as a wife of pleasing and shoving love for her man by submitting to his sexual wishes.

"But of course, if she felt you were falling short in your role as a man, by not supporting the family adequately or fixing stuff around the house, you would probably not accuse her of just wanting you for money or for your handyman services, unless of course she weren't giving you the sex you want. Then you might feel used, and not feel like doing what she wants. Well, it's the same way with sex; she's feeling disgruntled about, or turned off by, something that's unrelated to your wanting more sex, or wanting her to do more of what you want in the bedroom; and her not wanting to give you the sexual favors you want is just a symptom of that.

"When a girl is really, really into you, she's going to be pretty pliant to your sexual demands. It's when she starts to lose attraction and not be into you as much that her loss of interest in doing sexual stuff that you desire becomes an issue in the relationship. Or it's when she really wasn't all that in love with you to begin with, but wanted a relationship for other reasons (maybe she's pushing 30 and needs to settle for a man who, unfortunately, isn't like any of the Chads she was really into, but who pumped her and dumped her rather than committing to her), and now she wants to maximize what she gets from you (e.g. financial benefits) while minimizing what she has to give in return, that she doesn't feel like giving.

"This also sets the stage for what happens when the relationship is right about to fall apart, which is that she will say that you sexually abused her. There probably were times when you wanted sex and she didn't, or you wanted to do something in bed that she wasn't particularly interested in, and you kept telling her to do it, till she acquiesced and did it. That probably happens in every relationship.

"Girls will do this to guys too; there probably also are times in every relationship when the guy is really tired or busy or something and doesn't feel like having sex and she'll get turned on by his lack of interest, or maybe she'll just have been looking forward to sex and not feel like going to sleep disappointed, so she'll persist in using her words and her body to let him know that she badly wants sex. She'll suck on his penis and open her legs wide so he can go inside her even when he's only half-hard, and generally do whatever else is needed to get him to the point where his arousal overcomes his tiredness or distraction, and as he's slowly thrusting into her as she moves her own body in rhythm with his and uses her arms to pull him closer to get him to go deeper, his penis gets harder and harder inside of her, and soon she's begging him to go faster and harder, so that he is having to push himself to the utmost, mustering all his reserves of strength and will to keep up with her desires because she caught him at a moment when he was already exhausted and not really in a sexual mode of thinking.

"It's a good feeling when you're able to get a girl who didn't really feel in the mood for sex, to have sex with you, and enjoy it. When a girl says, 'We're not having sex' and then 15 minutes or a half hour later, you're balls deep in her, joyfully plowing into her body as she's moaning underneath you, and you're thinking back on how she said you weren't going to have sex, it's a good feeling. Girls like it too; they like when occasionally they approach their man for sex and he says he doesn't want to and she gets him to do it anyway. The feminists talk about 'enthusiastic consent' but it's also exciting when you can get someone to do what they really didn't feel like doing (as long as they don't have a sullen and resentful attitude about it, like when some girls give starfish sex as a passive-aggressive way of obeying the letter of what their husband told them to do, but not the spirit.)

"If a girl is not only in love with you but in the mood for sex, and eagerly opens her legs for you, you didn't have to overcome any obstacles to have sex with her. It's not as passionate as when, say, after a fight, you manage to reconcile and now you have make-up sex, expressing with your bodies how overjoyed you are at having been able to successfully deal with the issues between you (for the moment anyway) and come back together. It is a triumph, and you celebrate together.

"It's the same way when a girl who loves you isn't in the mood for sex, and you get her to have sex anyway. It shows more love on her part, and therefore makes you feel better about yourself for being the man who could inspire that kind of love in a woman even when her own physical desire for sex was not enough, by itself, to make her want to open her legs. She is in that case doing it for love, not for lust, and everyone wants to be loved, rather than just lusted after.

"Since it is a man's power that makes a girl fall in love with him, when a girl shows love in that way, by having sex with him, and getting into it and enjoying it and showing him affection and a desire (not just willingness) to please him, even when she wasn't initially in the mood, it makes him feel powerful, because that's the only explanation for why she's doing it. Either he is powerful or he had the ability to make her think he was powerful, which is a kind of power in and of itself. (Personality also plays a role in attraction, but because a good personality is commonplace, while power is rarer, a woman's love for a man is at least as much based on his power as his having a good personality. Men with good personalities are abundant and therefore it's nothing special, and nothing to make her fall head-over-heels in love with and want to pursue him, just because he's a nice guy. If, on the other hand, he's charming, good-looking, makes her laugh, is good in bed, knows how to be successful in the business world, inspires the respect of other men, etc., these are all forms of power that aren't found in every man, and therefore are more impressive.)

"Women too, though, like to have a sense of their own power, in being able to get them to fall in love with them and sexually arouse them (not necessarily in that order). The same way men love when they can solve a challenging problem (like solving a Rubik's cube, or debugging a computer program, or getting a girl they're interested in to have sex with them) and get the desired result, which is proof of their power, women like when they can figure out what makes a man tick and behave in a way that makes him think he's found 'The One' who is special and unique and therefore the woman whom he should marry (not just have sex with, but marry, or whatever is the informal equivalent of marriage these days. Shack up with, perhaps, and have kids with, and give her the other amenities that traditionally came with marriage). When he doesn't want to have sex, but she proves her ability to arouse him anyway, and to get him to go inside of her, and have sex with her in a way that satisfies her, she feels good because every woman likes the experience of being in a situation where she knows her attractiveness to a man she wants, at that moment, is fairly marginal, but she's able to find a way to attract and arouse him anyway and get what she wants, which is the manifestation of lust or love or whatever she was wanting to evoke in him. It's like when a man solves a difficult Sudoku puzzle or something, except it's even more impressive because in interpersonal interactions, you're basically solving the puzzle in pen because you can't take back a mistake that you make.

"When she says she feels like you sexually abused her, that just means she feels ripped off, or needs some excuse to distance herself from you. The two are really one and the same. Girls feel like if they gave you their pussy and the relationship didn't work out (whether because you dumped them or they dumped you), that they got ripped off. They did what you wanted them to do, which was open their legs; but you didn't do everything they wanted you to do, which was not only stay with them but be the man they wanted you to be so that they would want to stay with you.

"By her way of thinking, if you had been the man she wanted you to be, she would've also been the woman you wanted her to be. Or at any rate, she would've done for you what's reasonable for a man to expect of a woman. If you were this girl's first love, then probably she was willing to do a lot more for you than if she was a non-virgin, because virgins tend to fall deeply in love with the man who takes their virginity and consider him amazing and wonderful and special and irreplaceable, and want to do everything they can to please him. In contrast, non-virgins will compare him to Chad and find him lacking in certain qualities Chad had (even if the new man is better, he's still not Chad; Chad was special just because he was her first, and therefore just about every aspect of Chad, even his quirks, she accepted and even fell in love with). She therefore will not treat her new lover as well as she treated Chad, especially considering that in her mind, the fact that her relationship with Chad didn't work out means that 'men are assholes' and don't deserve to be treated well. She'll never get over her bitterness that things didn't work out between her and Chad.

"So when a girl says, 'You just want me for sex' or 'You're a sex addict' or 'You're obsessed with sex,' there is no point in getting into an argument about whether this is true. For example, reminding her, 'But there's so much more to our relationship, and we do so much other stuff besides have sex,' will not get her to stop saying all you want is sex. Facts and logic are not going to change her feelings, which are the real issue. You can't logic your way into getting her to love you the way you want her to love you, so that she will want to open her legs to you and give you the affection you're looking for.

"You can't persuade her that she's the one being unreasonable, because a woman's love and attraction are more about feelings than reasons of the sort that she would necessarily be willing and able to acknowledge and have an open conversation with you about, to get at the real issues of why she doesn't feel like putting out. Her feelings of being turned off around you are hardwired female responses to your showing weakness, and therefore you need to change that behavior to get her to feel differently.

"Of course, even if she's not in the mood for sex, or doesn't particularly enjoy giving you the kinds of sexual favors you like (aside from getting enjoyment out of seeing you happy), she could happily do what you want just to please you, because she loves you. In an earlier part of the relationship, when she was more in love with you, maybe she did in fact do this. This is similar to how you do stuff for her that you wouldn't ordinarily feel like doing, but you do it anyway, and even feel happy doing it, knowing it'll make her happy and benefit the relationship. It gives you a feeling of accomplishment because you know (or believe) she'll love you more for it.

"But now she's starting to not love you, or she's already fallen out of love with you, or maybe her love for you was never really all that strong to begin with. Your feelings of being unloved when she declines sex are actually an accurate reflection of the truth. Girls who aren't in the mood for sex, but love their man, will usually have sex with him anyway (unless they're, say, in the middle of an argument about something else besides his desire to have sex with her, because there's something going on in the relationship that's causing her to be really angry with him and not want to put out), and even if they didn't feel like having sex at first, they'll get into it and enjoy it. Men know this, and want to have that experience of seeing her reluctance turn into sexual excitement and pleasure once they're in the middle of sex. They would like if that would happen with their wife who is refusing sex.

"Normally there's an understanding between men and women who are in a relationship that one of them is going to want more sex than the other, and that this is perfectly normal. They will need to find a way that they can both be happy with the situation. Ideally, the one who wants sex less often will accommodate her husband's wish by having sex with him whenever he wants; and her husband will accommodate her wishes as well by pleasing her sexually and also bringing other stuff to the table in the relationship that she wants, showing her love by giving her gifts, giving her a good life through the resources he provides, being a strong man whom she can respect, etc. In this way, they both get the love that they want, even though the love for each other is expressed in different ways (through different love languages, one might say). The goal is for each spouse to give the other the kind of love that he or she wants and needs. When they love each other and are able to do this, then everything goes smoothly.

"But if it's at the point where she's starting to accuse him of having excessive desire for sex, rather than just understanding and accepting that it's natural for him to have a stronger sex drive than her and that it's perfectly normal for him to expect her to fulfill his wishes for more sex, since that's what a loving wife does -- at that point what is going on is that she just doesn't want to admit that either she's falling out of love with him or he's not giving her the kind of love she needs and therefore she feels ripped off and doesn't want to give him love either. The two can go hand in hand, because if he's showing weakness, and not being the kind of strong man who can, say, go out into the world and do what's needed to protect her and provide for her, then she may lose attraction based on the weakness too, in addition to the fact that he isn't able to show love in the way she would like, by making her life better.

"An example of this is that women are pretty much universally unattracted to a man who has no job (not even criminal activity) that he's involved in. He's not showing masculinity, which is the use of male strength to overcome obstacles in life in pursuit of his goals. They want a man who brings home at least some money (or is working convincingly toward reaching that goal in the near future), so that he is at least making some effort to give her a better life, because this is how he shows both strength and love. Even if he is unsuccessful at first, the thought counts for something, much like how if she wanted to have sex with him but couldn't because of some temporary reason she couldn't help, like a bad yeast infection, he will still feel frustrated but won't actually feel hurt, because she's not purposefully rejecting him. (Of course, if she were physically disabled to the point that she could never have sex with him, then the relationship might become unworkable, much like if he were to become permanently disabled from providing for her or doing anything else useful for her, she might consider the relationship to have failed.)

"His attempt to provide for her is a token of love, much like how a wife's being happily affectionate with her husband in bed, and sexually generous in what she's willing to do with her body, even above and beyond what he tells her to do, in show adoration for him and pleasing him, is a token of love. Tokens are about symbolism; his job, however humble it may be at the moment, is symbolic of his masculinity, as are his efforts to improve himself and rise to a better job; and his buying stuff for her, with whatever meager wages he may make from his job, is a token of his love. It's the thought that counts to her, just like when they're in bed and she's showing him love, it's the thought behind what she does that makes him happy, even more than the physical pleasure, which he could get from a prostitute but would prefer to get from her, even if he had the money to hire lots of prostitutes.

"Incels, of course, are not allowed to express ANY sexual desire toward women, without being accused of being creepy and inappropriate. An approach that would've been flattering or romantic from Chad, and a turn-on because he's showing masculine initiative and courage (aka balls) in approaching her, from an incel will be considered 'bothering' her. There are many social conventions that apply only to incels and not to Chad. The convention about not 'bothering' people you don't know and trying to strike up a conversation only applies to undesirable people whom others don't want to be approached by; they would love if someone likable and attractive approached them. But because they don't want to point-blank tell you, 'You're just an undesirable person,' they act like it's a social rule applicable to everyone when it's not.

"It's like how when girls say, 'You just want me for sex,' they're trying to avoid saying, 'I'm not very attracted to you,' or 'I don't love you' because that might not go over too well, and then it would might make it seem like the problem is with her rather than with you. Maybe she committed to love you for the rest of your life. Guess what, you can't force yourself, by an effort of will alone, to love someone; the closest you can come is to stay committed to the relationship and try to make it work and try to look for the good in the other person.

"But when a man is showing weakness, this is going to tend to turn her off and make it harder for her to give him the kind of love that he wants. She can go through the motions, but she won't be feeling the enthusiasm like she did when she was passionately in love with him. And the longer this goes on, with her feeling like she's giving love to him and not getting what she wants back from him, the more she's going to start to feel like she's being treated unfairly, and/or tend to have a wandering eye and want to find a man who is more powerful and able and willing to give her the kind of love she wants (by which I mean, not just a sufficient intensity or amount of love, but also love in the form that she wants, just like her husband wants love in the form of hot sex rather than, say, material gifts like the flowers, jewelry, etc. that women like to receive from men).

"In the course of life, relationships can easily ebb and flow, as men who seemed powerful at first can start to seem less powerful with changing circumstances that put him in a position where he succumbs to weakness, causing his wife to lose attraction. If society says to a woman, 'You are free to leave your husband and go pursue other options,' it's going to be really tempting for her to leave rather than patiently stick by him and wait for better times that may or may not come, especially if she has had prior relationships before him and therefore does not view it as such a big deal to break up a relationship; maybe she even feels entitled to do so, and a part of her has even been looking forward to this, as a way of getting even with men in general after Chad dumped her so many years ago."

Nathan Larson explains why he uses the expression "pussy" rather than "sex"

5 January 2018 — Catlett, Virginia — Neoreactionary libertarian congressional candidate Nathan Larson explained today why he uses the word "pussy" rather than "sex" throughout much of the Larson for Congress website.

"Part of the reason is that I just like that word," Larson noted. "But also, to speak of 'getting pussy' instead of 'getting sex' makes clearer that it refers to getting vaginal sex. That differentiates it from gay sex and from heterosexual sex in other orifi besides the vagina.

"But most of all, it's because usually I'm speaking in the context of not just obtaining sexual favors, but also property rights over the woman in her entirety, including her actual physical pussy. Marriage is not just about having a right to certain services that a wife provides but actually being the owner of the wife herself.

"Also, I just like the imagery that the word 'pussy' brings to mind because vaginas are very beautiful and therefore I find the thought of owning a girl's pussy and being able to look at it and otherwise enjoy it whenever I want appealing. So therefore, I speak of obtaining pussy rather than just obtaining sex. You might say, I value women for more than sex; I cherish and admire their bodies, and delight in my ownership of them, even when we're not having sex.

"I also use expressions like 'she opened her legs' rather than 'she let him have sex with her' because when a woman opens her legs, this is an overt, affirmative act of literally opening the way for a man to have sex with her, rather than just lying there and letting him take her, which can be difficult or impossible for him to do without her cooperation. Opening her legs is also a specific reference to what she does before vaginal sex, rather than some other kind of sex (unless maybe he's putting her in an ankles-behind-her-ears position for anal sex)."

Nathan Larson explains why non-virginal girls are unacceptable for marriage

5 January 2018 — Catlett, Virginia — Neoreactionary libertarian congressional candidate Nathan Larson explained today why incels want virginal brides.

"People often say that incels have an unreasonable sense of entitlement to virgin brides," Larson noted. "To this, incels will often respond that they themselves have never had sex, and therefore it's not unreasonable to expect that they should have a bride who is the same way.

"A bride's virginity is a cornerstone of a successful marriage. Girls bond with their first love in a way that they will never bond with subsequent lovers. With the man who is her first love, she experience the joy of discovery of sex, exploring his body and worshiping and adoring his genitals, his ass, his armpits, and every other part of his body, falling in love even with his natural scents that he would normally cover up with deodorant. She wants to bury her face in his pubic hair and inhale deeply. She wants to lick and suck everything. When she looks up at him from between his legs, with his hardening penis in her mouth, she has an expression of awe and wonder, because he's like a god to her, since he's her first. She forms her lifelong sexual preferences based on what he likes to do in bed. The impression that first relationship makes on her will remain with her for the rest of her life.

"When a woman is with her first love, her heart believes that the relationship can never end. If that relationship does in fact end, it was either because she caused it to end (which reflects poorly on her), or because of some other cause. Either way, she is now going to switch, in future relationships, to operating under the assumption that the relationship will end. She will not invest in those relationships as much as she invested in her first relationship. She will not love subsequent men she's with as much as she loved her first love.

"It's like a sticker that sticks most firmly the first time it is placed on something, but if ripped off and places on something else, will not stick to it as firmly. She will be quicker to dump a second or subsequent love than she was to dump her first love. She will start to become bitter at time and emotions wasted on relationships that didn't work out, and take that anger out on subsequent men by not treating them as well as she treated her first love. Later lovers will bear the punishment for what early lovers did, even though those later lovers did her the favor of accepting her when she was older and perhaps not as cute anymore.

"She will start to have trust issues from being treated poorly. She will not give her new lover the benefit of the doubt the way she did her first love. Instead, she will be skeptical about his intentions, and not open her heart to him as much.

"She will be less willing to cater to her new lover's preferences because she misses her first love and how he used to have sex with her. She will have formed her ideas of what's reasonable to expect of a lover based on what he expected, and not want to do anything with her new lover that her first lover didn't ask of her. This is especially true if her earlier lovers were alphas and her new lover is a beta. She will show symptoms of alpha widowhood.

"Even under a patriarchal regime, in which husbands can force their wives to give them whatever kinds of sexual favors they demand, the sex will not be as good as it would have been if he had been her first love. She won't delight in it the same way, going beyond what he tells her to do, to do even more. He won't be special to her the way her first love was. He's just getting the leftovers after her first love already got the best that she had to offer.

"It's going to be easier for her to want to commit adultery, if she has had previous lovers. Having sex with another man besides her husband will seem like no big deal because she already had sex with other men before they got married. She won't feel as hesitant about the idea. Also, if she has been the one wanting to jump in bed with a bunch of different men, that indicates a tendency to impulsively have sex with new men, which doesn't bode well for her ability to be a faithful wife.

"Because of all this, their relationship won't be as strong as it would have been if her husband had been her first love. Because she is not treating him as well as she treated her first love, he too will have trouble investing as fully in the relationship as he would have if he had been her first love. It will in general be harder to make the relationship be a happy relationship that weathers all the storms of their time together to last a lifetime.

"This is why early marriage is important. Girls need to be married off shortly after hitting puberty, before they fall in love with someone who will break their hearts and leave them as damaged goods. This is also why incels will prefer or even insist on virginal brides."

Nathan Larson lays out comprehensive plan for stamping out inceldom

4 January 2018 — Catlett, Virginia — Neoreactionary libertarian congressional candidate Nathan Larson today laid out his comprehensive plan for stamping out the scourge of inceldom, which afflicts so many men in 21st century America.

"My plan consists of two elements. The first is a short-term solution which we will use as an immediate remedy for the current crisis. The second is a more permanent solution.

"There is currently no way we can satisfy the American incel population because there simply are not enough virginal young girls left in this country, since Chad already took them all. Having incels marry non-virginal women is not a viable option, since such women are unsuitable for marriage. Therefore, we have to look outside our borders.

"As a stopgap solution to address the urgent necessity of the moment, I propose a military conquest of Canada and Latin America, funded by U.S. companies that seek to exploit those countries' mineral, petroleum, agricultural, tourism, and other resources. This isn't really anything new, since the U.S. has in the past already overthrown many Latin American governments and installed dictators at the behest of companies like the United Fruit Company. These businesses would impose company rule, analogous to that practiced in the past by the British South Africa Company, the East India Company, etc.

"I think the current state of Latin American politics demonstrates that they will probably fare better under white rule. Democracy is an inefficient system, inferior to governance by a profit-seeking corporation operating in a competitive marketplace. An American company can raise investment capital for building infrastructure and making other needed improvements to the country.

"Incels will be encouraged to enlist as volunteers in the invading army, which will take Canadian and Latin American territory to add to the dominion of their corporate sponsors, while also seizing all the nubile Canadian and Latin American women. Those women will then be distributed to the male population of the United States as sex slaves.

"The way this distribution will work, is that the females of a family, i.e. the mother (if she's still decent-looking) and her daughters, will be kidnapped as a group and kept together. This is so that the mother can continue to nurture her young daughters, and teach them how to make enchiladas, tamales, and whatnot; and so that a white American man can marry all of them and get to enjoy them together. Sororal polygyny has proven to be a system that works well because sisters are more mutually supportive and less argumentative than nonsiblings; so therefore, we will use this system for the establishment of harems.

"Each soldier who served in the war with distinction and valor will be issued a group of his choice, to become his harem; and then the other soldiers will each be allowed to pick a group for themselves; and lastly, those groups still remaining will be auctioned off to members of the American male general public.

"This will solve the immediate inceldom problem by allowing impoverished incels to earn one or more wives by fighting in the army, while those with money will be able to buy wives at auction. Military service will also help train incels in physical fitness and instill in them a can-do attitude, which will come in handy during their marriages when they are expected to fulfill all the duties of protecting and providing for their family.

"The Americas have traditionally been considered part of the U.S. sphere of influence, as we have a history of becoming military involved in those countries and even annexing their territory when it suited our purposes. Canada is a good country to conquer since most of the women are white English-speakers who can probably readily adapt to American culture. Latin America is also a good choice of area to conquer, because the women are usually curvaceous and have a reputation for being good in bed, maybe even the best in the world. People say they get the rhythm just right, which sounds plausible to me, having seen their dance moves.

"Latinas have a natural femininity and a sexual aura. They have a reputation for having fiery tempers, but I'm thinking that adequately strong pimp hand can probably keep that in check. At any rate, a woman with a temper tends to be a passionate woman in general, which can certainly have its upsides. Latinas also tend to cook for their men, which has become a lost art among many American women. (Some may say that the realities of Latinas don't match up to expectations, but I would still fuck the brains out of that girl in the "reality" segment of the video.)

Nonetheless, to these ideas I have presented, for mixing white and Latina blood, National Socialists will probably raise similar objections as what Hitler set forth in Mein Kampf:

In North America, where the population is prevalently Teutonic, and where those elements intermingled with the inferior race only to a very small degree, we have a quality of mankind and a civilization which are different from those of Central and South America. In these latter countries the immigrants - who mainly belonged to the Latin races - mated with the aborigines, sometimes to a very large extent indeed. In this case we have a clear and decisive example of the effect produced by the mixture of races. But in North America the Teutonic element, which has kept its racial stock pure and did not mix it with any other racial stock, has come to dominate the American Continent and will remain master of it as long as that element does not fall a victim to the habit of adulterating its blood.

In short, the results of miscegenation are always the following:
(a) The level of the superior race becomes lowered;
(b) physical and mental degeneration sets in, thus leading slowly but steadily towards a progressive drying up of the vital sap.

"But from what I've seen, the offspring from white-Latina marriages can be attractive and intelligent. Hitler's main concern was, 'It is especially the cultural creativeness which disappears when a superior race intermixes with an inferior one'. But what are we really supposed to do, when the alternatives are either celibacy or trying to start a family with Chad's leftovers? Feminism has destroyed this generation of American white women. We have to just hope that in a large number of these racial mixtures to which we must resort, the white genes will be dominant.

Canadian and Latin American female populations

Country	Age				Sum
	0-4	5-9	10-14	15-19
Canada	915,945	883,935	936,360	1,062,295	3,798,535
Mexico	5,346,943	5,604,175	5,547,613	5,520,121	22,018,852
Belize	20,098	21,121	20,430	18,783	80,432
Costa Rica	145,961	156,423	196,136	217,301	715,821
El Salvador	296,430	294,483	348,111	350,791	1,289,815
Guatemala	1,062,224	987,490	891,659	795,688	3,737,061
Honduras	530,110	509,139	481,523	431,337	1,952,109
Nicaragua	332,920	323,279	332,925	329,072	1,318,196
Panama	179,822	176,909	173,379	164,639	694,749
Argentina	1,687,476	1,657,086	1,645,030	1,690,668	6,680,260
Bolivia	533,654	488,031	528,298	546,999	2,096,982
Brazil	533,654	488,031	528,298	546,999	2,096,982
Chile	615,764	610,458	625,765	684,424	2,536,411
Colombia	2,100,031	2,084,913	2,118,395	2,143,506	8,446,845
Ecuador	826,731	816,503	783,725	737,082	3,164,041
Guyana	33,673	32,423	37,943	41,518	145,557
Paraguay	363,561	358,751	351,350	339,645	1,413,307
Peru	1,421,071	1,439,049	1,434,336	1,425,272	5,719,728
Suriname	24,150	25,160	24,850	23,670	97,830
Uruguay	107,641	116,248	125,530	128,649	478,068
Venezuela	1,424,743	1,400,914	1,364,178	1,334,874	5,524,709
Total	18,502,602	18,474,521	18,495,834	18,533,333	74,006,290

"After the patriarchy has been reestablished, and begun making young, virginal Aryan brides available to the masses of men who want them, our offspring can then go back to mating with whites, and everything will be fine since there will be, as Hitler predicted, the possibility of 'a slow but constant regeneration whereby all the poison which has invaded the racial body is gradually eliminated so long as there still remains a fundamental stock of pure racial elements which resists further crossbreeding.' As this table on the right demonstrates, there are approximately 74 million girls aged 0-19 throughout Canada and Latin America, which should be enough to eliminate inceldom from the United States.

"There are also already a number of nubile Latinas in this country illegally, and they should of course, when apprehended, be forced into marriage to incels. Then they will have the benefit of remaining in this country while also helping satisfy the needs of the incel population. What should happen in these instances is that if a whole family of illegals is found, José and his sons should be dealt with by either sending them back where they came from, or auctioning them off as slaves to American businesses that are in need of manual labor, or setting them free to roam around the U.S. as they were doing. What happens to them is not really a matter of major concern, as the main goal is simply to find a way by which every American white man can obtain young, virginal pussy, by forcing every available nubile girl who passes the boner test into sexual slavery to members of the white male population, and distributing those girls in a way that is equitable enough to keep there from being a vast underclass of sexually disenfranchised white incels.

"In this scenario, José's wife (if she's still young enough to be decent-looking) and daughters should be given to an incel to become his sexual property, so that at least the female side of the family can be kept together. The reason for doing this is that incels are a kindhearted, humanitarian group of men who wish to accomplish their goals in the way that no more disruptive to families than necessary; and also because an incel's taking both the mother and daughters as wives presents opportunities for sexual variety, and sets up a rather arousingly kinky living situation, since banging a mother and her daughters is a common male fantasy; plus there's the fact that a Latina mother can train her daughters in culinary skills, sexy dancing, etc. Since Latinas are often fond of having large families, there may be many opportunities for incels to acquire harems in this way. The way this might work, is that we might place a bounty of sorts on these illegal immigrants, by giving their women as sex slaves to whichever white incel finds them and reports them to the immigration authorities, resulting in their capture.

"As a more permanent solution, I propose that we begin commercially breeding women for sale, and that charities assist incels in being able to purchase at least one woman, much as they would feed, clothe, and shelter the poor rather than let them starve or freeze to death in the streets. This commercial breeding could become highly advanced and involve, say, cloning supermodels. Using sex selection, these breeders can meet a production target calling for a high ratio of females to males, thereby driving down the price of sex slaves to the point that they are affordable to pretty much every man.

"When a young man hits puberty and begins having sexual desires, his parents might purchase a young bride for him from one of these breeders, so that he'll be able to have the companionship and sex of a pretty girl to comfort him and pleasure him during the turbulent years of adolescence. Unlike so many teenage boys of our time, He won't have to feel 'uncool' for not being able to attract a girlfriend because he'll already have a cute wife in his bed. Those families that are rich and want to spoil their son could even buy him more than one wife. I imagine it would make Christmas shopping easier; one could simply give him a gift certificate redeemable for one wife from the wife farm.

"The marriageable age will be abolished, so that fathers will have freedom to marry their daughters off to a husband of their choice at whatever age they deem appropriate. Early marriage will help get rid of the problem of girls' fornicating with Chad and thereby depriving her eventual husband of the opportunity to be the one who deflowers her.

"Men will be given authority to force their wives to have sex, and to physically discipline them for disobedience; having sex with another man's wife will be punishable by death; divorce and separation will be illegal, unless the husband makes arrangements to properly dispose of unwanted property rather than just abandoning it; and in general men will be allowed to treat their wives as any other kind of property whose purpose is to satisfy their wishes. This will significantly curb the kind of female misbehavior that plagues our time, making marriages happier.

"In the future, it'll be almost unheard of for men to have to have to resort to masturbation, because they'll always have a sexy young wife around the house to serve their pleasure. She can help him start the day off right by cooking a nice breakfast for him and giving him morning sex to make him feel loved. She can take care of their kids while he's at work so that they can have actual parenting during the day rather than just babysitting; and she can clean the house, and joyfully put her arms around him as he comes in the door from work carrying a bouquet of sweet-smelling flowers for her; and fix dinner for the family, and be a soft, warm, affectionate comforting presence in his bed, sleeping naked next to him so he can admire her feminine beauty, running his hands along her supple curves, her body always ready for his enjoyment whenever it is his whim to get on top of her and suckle her pert and yummy breasts, biting on them lightly as she fondles his hair; and feel her legs wrapped around him, and her sensual kisses on his neck and cheek, and her tongue moving against his as he forcefully and decisively pushes it between her lips to penetrate her mouth in a passionate french kiss.

"He now moves his body to straddle her face, and she opens her mouth to let him put his half-hard penis inside. As he gets more excited and begins thrusting gently down her throat, he feels the pressure of her throat closing around him as she swallows to suppress her gag reflex so she can continue taking all of him to the fullest depths, arousing him to the point that he can feel he is fully erect. Filled with anticipation of the best to come, he pulls himself out of her mouth and now puts himself between her open legs, which she submissively raises to let him inside of her. He puts the head of his erect penis at the entrance to her warm pussy, and pauses for an instant to look into her eyes, seeing her feminine tenderness manifested in her expression of waiting for him to do what it is his place as a man to do, which is take her at his pleasure. Ready to enjoy the best that she has to offer, he pushes himself, gently at first, then more insistently and determinedly, through her youthfully tight entrance, hearing her cry "oh!" as he slides deeper into the hotness and pressure of her most-intimate place, squeezing so snugly all around his manhood as he now plunges fully into her innermost depths, feeling her body shudder and tighten all the more to hold his male part in the strong grip of her pussy, as she moans "oh,' at the moment he fills her up completely, pushing against her cervix; and he is filled with a rapturous sense of joy and pride in himself that this infinitely wonderful place between her legs is for him alone to come to know and possess through the exploration of her body with his, a pleasure that is for him only because she belongs to him.

"If he marries her while she is still young, he can mold her to be the woman he wants her to be, by being her first and only lover, teaching her his way of thinking and what he likes for her to do, and introducing her to his interests, so she can better be a fit companion for him. The current practice, of men marrying washed-up ex-sluts who feel bitter for not getting to marry the Chad who took their virginity, and who therefore take out their anger on their husband, will end. The sad and sorry spectacle, of men's having to lose half their stuff in divorce proceedings and pay child support to a woman they don't even get to continue having sex with, who has custody of kids he doesn't get to see, will be done away with too, because men will finally realize that it is not serving anyone's interests, and abolish that family court system. The endless heartache, stress, and expense of interminable litigation against the mother of one's kids will be done away with, and there will be order in the household when the husband is once against enthroned in his proper role as king. The institution of marriage will be revived by making it once again workable, and there will be peace and harmony.

"Those feminist girls who are suspected to be not yet beyond salvaging (viz., those who still have intact hymens) will be assigned to a man who will serve as their teacher and eventual husband. He will impose upon them a regimen of forced re-education in which he teaches them patriarchal values (which they will be forced to memorize and repeat), in between sessions of forcefully spanking them, violating them, using them as human toilets, and otherwise subjecting them to the most shocking and degrading treatment possible till their spirits are broken and they are ready to surrender mind, body, and spirit to the patriarchy, relinquishing all will of their own to serve in their new role as wife, love-companion, concubine, rape-slave, etc. Their natural feminine instincts to submit to male power, obeying their husband's wishes and serving his pleasure so that they can be loved by him, will be reawakened by this process, if they are not already too far gone to be saved. It is only by dominating them completely that their will to resist can be totally crushed as they realize that, at long last, they are under the rule of a man they can respect for fulfilling his proper masculine role. With this change of attitude on her part, they can finally have a happy and prosperous relationship together.

"In all these ways, the problem of involuntary celibacy will at last be solved, and the U.S. can begin rapidly increasing its white population, which had been threatened with decline. Since white women are the gold standard of female beauty, they will likely be in high demand from breeders and therefore white blood will naturally tend to dominate in the population. This is especially true since white men have most of the money in this country and therefore will be able to afford a larger number of white women and produce lots of pure white children. As the population rises beyond what the earth can support, it will spur humanity to develop technology for exploring and settling other worlds, helping mankind to become more resilient against the threat of an asteroid impact by becoming a multiplanetary species.

"Although some might say that it is just natural selection if incels aren't be able to reproduce because women won't open their legs to them, one could also argue by that same logic that it is just natural selection if women get gang-raped and murdered by incels. Either way, someone's genetic line is being brought to an abrupt end by the decisions and actions of others. I say, let's stop the hate on both sides and implement a solution that will benefit all Americans.

"It is okay if the poor, the ugly, etc. are given the minimal amount of reproductive resources (i.e. one wife) needed to keep them reasonably happy; those who are wealthier, more attractive, etc. will still tend to out-reproduce them because they can acquire even more mates. (Even in a society where wives can be purchased, there may still be some arranged marriages in which a man's looks play a role in his getting chosen to be the husband of another man's daughter.)

"Currently, the poor and ugly already often have an opportunity to reproduce, because they can mate with each other. When beautiful brides are mass produced for sale, and even the poor and ugly are able to obtain one, it will actually be eugenic compared to our current state of affairs, because at least their kids will have one parent with high-quality genetics, and therefore half a chance of inheriting some decent genes, in contrast to how it is now, when many kids are born to two parents with bad genes and end up getting the worst of both worlds unless they're lucky enough to benefit from genetic recombination.

Nathan Larson answers feminists' question, "Is rape about power?"

4 January 2018 — Catlett, Virginia — Neoreactionary libertarian congressional candidate Nathan Larson issued his answer today to a classic feminist theory about rape's purpose.

"Feminists will often say, "Rape isn't about sex. It's about power," Larson noted. "That's kind of like saying, 'War isn't about killing people. It's about accomplishing political objectives.' In other words, the killing is just a means to an end.

"But sometimes it's the other way around, when a goal of gaining political control is to be able to kill people. Wars are fought sometimes to take territory and then ethnically cleanse the population and execute their leaders, so that a new race with new leaders can have lebensraum.

"Similarly, in a war, soldiers in an invading army may rape women of the local population. This partly serves to demoralize the men whose wives and daughters they are ravishing, so that they lose their will to fight; but also pleases the soldiers directly, and even gives them an incentive to be brave in combat so that they can have sexual conquests as well. Extending the reach of their country's dominion (aka political power) in that way then becomes a case of power serving the interests of rape, rather than the other way around.

"The interbreeding which the conquerors force upon the native girls 'kills' the purity of the native bloodline, which is part of the point, because from the point of view of the conquerors, it has to give way somewhat so that their own bloodline can dominate. The girls still have reason to try to adjust to the new situation and please their new masters, since some of their genes (though not all) will be passed on to the children they bear to the men forcing them into rape-marriage.

"This is why the conquerors choose to keep them around at all, rather than killing them; they know that girls are more pliable than men, and will represent less of a threat to their authority, due to the potential for marriage to bind their futures together inseparably as they pursue a common cause, sharing their mutual interest of raising the children they have together. Otherwise, they might keep the men around as slaves too, if they could trust them not to try to mount a rebellion (or the girls, whom the conquerors would prefer to keep for themselves).

"Although Hitler warned against a dominant race's mixing its blood with native peoples it conquers, when conquerors look upon the nubile girls, they tend to find the idea of rape-marrying (not just raping, but rape-marrying, so they can enjoy them on more than one occasion, and raise kids with them) rather enticing. After all, they are exotic, which means there's a possibility they may have something novel (e.g. techniques; personality; physical appearance, especially when naked; etc.) to offer in the bedroom. They know, at any rate, that whatever surprises are in store for them will likely be interesting and not too unpleasant, so seeking the joy of discovery, they can't help but want to plunge right in.

"The mixing of the two races' genes may produce a hybrid that is stronger than either race, if it doesn't instead degrade the quality of the race that is in most respects superior (as Hitler feared it would). While the conquerors may have exhausted the supply of nubile girls in their own country, this is now a fresh supply of girls to impregnate with male sons who can carry on the family line and thereby perform a service that male slaves, as useful as they might be, would not be able to fulfill.

"Sex and power are two sides of the same coin, since powerful men are able to take women by force, and women desire to be forcibly taken by powerful men. Although women look for physically attractive traits in men, this is partly too about power, because many components of male handsomeness are correlated with genetic quality, indicating the ability (aka POWER) to father high-quality offspring. A less attractive man may lack this power because his sperm don't carry that high-quality DNA. Likewise, a muscular man who is able to physically dominate a girl when she makes token efforts to resist as part of sex-play also turns her on. This too is a sign of power. She is hardwired to look for those characteristics because she needs a man who is powerful enough to protect and provide for her.

"Men use their powers to fight with one another for the opportunity to mate with desirable women. In the business world, they struggle for dominance in the marketplace, where the power to work efficiently and productively; to come up with and implement useful ideas; and to speak in a way that will influence people, gain allies, close deals, etc. sets them apart from their rivals. By this means, they obtain money; and all else equal, women are attracted to men with money, because they want the benefits that come with its purchasing power; plus they just have the hots for men who have a knack for obtaining such power.

"When a man approaches a girl he knows and invites her back to his place for dinner, and she sees how it is nice and clean, and there are no roommates around to spoil the romantic atmosphere, and he has a selection of music suitable for making her feel relaxed and putting her in the mood for sex, she subconsciously or consciously perceives that this is a man who has the power to create an environment she finds pleasant. When he has her help him prepare a meal with her, and tells her stories that make her laugh, and touches her casually and confidently during their interactions, she knows that this is a man who has the power to master his own natural feelings of nervousness around sexy girls to be able to say and do what will make her feel good as well. He is a man who knows how to lead the interaction and use her as an object for attaining his goals. In this way he demonstrates he has the power to make her happy by enabling her to fulfill the role that is most natural to her, which is that of following a man's instructions and being a part of his world that he finds helpful and pleasing, which will make him love her and want to take care of her.

"Maybe he will fix her a drink she's never heard of before, and tell her an interesting story about how he learned it, and play his guitar for her (manifesting power to use the instrument in a skillful and creative way), demonstrating the power to entertain rather than bore her. Later, when he takes her to the bedroom and she makes token efforts to resist his sexual moves, he shows he has the power to understand feminine psychology and his own role as a man, when he does what is needed to end up inside her vagina. He may also demonstrate the power to give her an orgasm.

"The law defines rape a certain way, which is that it's a man's putting his penis into a woman's vagina against her will, by force and without consent. Consent, of course, is a social construct. There's no way that laboratory equipment can measure consent, the same way we could measure, say, the exercise of power. We can measure the exercise of power by looking at the results of a man's actions and perhaps quantifying them in terms of money he was able to earn, women he was able to sleep with, etc. The exercise of power is objectively determinable; consent is subjective.

"Even though feminists say, 'No means no,' in reality, women will specifically say no sometimes, even to a man they're attracted to, just to force him into a situation where, if he wants the sexual enjoyment of her body (and to please her as well), he'll have no choice but to disregard her objection and take full responsibility for the decision to have sex. I'm not talking about a BDSM situation where they have an understanding that if she wants him to stop, she needs to say a safeword other than 'no'; I'm talking about a situation in which she's saying and doing whatever she needs to say and do to indicate an apparently real, true lack of consent, and he uses his strength (aka his physical power) to subdue her resistance and force himself inside of her anyway.

"To outward appearances, this might be rape. According to the feminist rules of engagement for sex, even though she did everything else he wanted, she had a right to change her mind up to the very moment when he was about to penetrate her, and even afterward, when he was inside of her. Supposedly she had a right to get him to stop at any time; and in that case, he is supposed to accept her wish as superseding his, and based on a rational perception of what is supposedly moral and fair and considerate to her (as well as legally required), subdue his own feelings of anticipation and excitement that had built up, and do what she says.

"This is despite the fact that everything else in their relationship up to this point was based on her gaining respect for him as a man who was the one taking charge, and telling her what to do, and not letting her push him around when she tested him to see what he was made of. It was based on his being the stronger one, the one who knew better what was in her interests and therefore, for example, when they went out to eat, chose which restaurant to go to rather than asking her preference. Now it is true that all that time, she had the ability to say, 'I don't want to go to that restaurant; let's go to this other restaurant' and maybe he would've taken her choice into consideration and either argued for his own choice or opted to give her choice a try and maybe learn something about her by exploring what she likes.

"Or if she had said, 'I don't feel like eating,' he likely would have honored that wish rather than go to a restaurant to eat in front of her without her eating. (Kind of like how men typically would rather get a girl to have sex willingly, so they can enjoy her sexual companionship in which she is moving with the rhythm of his lovemaking, tightening around his penis as she ascends toward orgasm, and moaning with pleasure; rather than beat her unconscious and rape her, which would render her mostly inert.)

"But here's where the analogy breaks down between consenting to sex and consenting to, say, going to a Chinese restaurant and drinking some oolong tea. There are times when women want a strong man to subdue them by force. A woman would prefer a man who, in an emergency where her life is in danger and she's so frightened that she's becoming hysterical, forcibly subdues her and does what's needed to keep her safe. This is arguably one of the reasons why nature made men physically stronger than women, just as adults are physically stronger than children. It's so those with a more logical mind can subdue those who need to be subdued.

"One might argue, in a situation where a man is putting himself inside a woman, there's no life-threatening emergency that he has to save her from. Isn't there? If they don't have sex, he won't get her pregnant, and that new life won't come into the world. So life is at stake. (Maybe this is why pro-lifers also tend to have some interesting opinions about rape.) And because she's perhaps afraid to make such a momentous decision as having sex, she loses her nerve and says 'no'. It's his role to subdue her and do what he thinks is best for the both of them. (Even if the goal is not to get her pregnant that very day, he may think it will benefit the relationship if he takes what he needs from her to feel happy and satisfied.)

"That's why men have penises and women have vaginas. It's to make it physically possible for him to rape her. If the situation were reversed, we might say that nature intended women to be able to rape men; or if women's vaginas had evolved in such a way as to be able to completely close whenever she wanted and not allow a penis to enter, then we might say that nature did not intend for women to be raped. But when I see an organ that's well-suited to a particular purpose, which not only is harmless to the person doing it but even gives him pleasure, it makes me think that maybe it was intended for that purpose.

"Another way in which sex is not like drinking tea is that the person who gives you the tea benefits from doing so. A girl might tell her boyfriend, before they start getting drunk with the intention of having sex together, 'If you're inside of me, and I pass out, I don't mind if you finish. I won't consider it rape.' She wants him to enjoy himself, so to her, it's okay if that happens during a time when she's unable to consent. Yet the law might still consider that rape.

"Don't let the Tea and Consent video confuse you; tea and sex are totally different. Sex isn't more pleasurable activity than drinking tea; it's in an entirely different category of activity. If you force tea upon a woman, it doesn't make her feel desired, because you get no pleasure from tea. When you force your penis into a woman, in contrast, it does make her feel desired. You were overcome enough by your emotions of wanting to take her that you didn't listen to what she said she wanted, and you took the extra effort that was needed to hold her down and force her to submit. That's a compliment to her, and they say the most sincere compliments are made through actions rather than words, which could merely be cheap flattery.

"In order to get that compliment that he makes by raping her, she has to say 'no' and thereby turn the sex into rape. This is a strong incentive to say 'no,' because women like to feel desired. What makes it even better is that when he has to rape her, he has to give yet one more demonstration of his power, which all along has been turning her on and now manifests through the act of sex itself. It's probably going to make her orgasm, and we know that statistically, quite a lot of 'raped' women say they did in fact orgasm.

"Drinking tea also is of much lesser consequence than sex. Not only can't a woman get pregnant through drinking tea, she also won't get as emotionally attached to a man who gives her tea, because it's not as intimate and doesn't cause the same chemicals to be released in her body. Therefore a woman is likely to be much more hesitant about sex than about drinking tea. Yet at the same time, a healthy woman's desire for sex with a man she finds attractive is probably stronger than her love of tea. The question then is, do you really expect a girl who's, say, 18-years-old (and therefore at the height of her attractiveness for men to want to have sex with her) to be able to confidently handle that decision and make a good choice one way or the other? She's facing not only the disadvantage of youth but also the disadvantage of being female, when it comes to being able to think all that through.

"Drinking tea also isn't as fun as sex. The consequences of drinking tea (e.g. feeling slightly caffeinated and needing to urinate shortly thereafter) also are much more obvious than the consequences of having sex (e.g. a happy sexual relationship producing lots of beautiful babies, or maybe a future that's a lot less pleasant than those daydreams). She is not going to be as conflicted by all these thoughts and emotions at the moment he offers tea as she is when she's making her last-minute decision before he puts his penis inside of her. Making a momentous decision requires courage, and young girls are not really known for courage. They're more well-known for getting carried away in the heat of the moment or running away frightened when they're not sure what to do.

"Add to that the fact that a man who has to stop right before sex might be more disappointed, upset, and even hurt than a man whose offer of tea is declined, and it's an emotionally charged situation. Refusing a man's offer of tea doesn't reflect on him personally. Refusing his putting his penis inside of her, if she sincerely doesn't want it, does reflect on how she feels about him personally, and maybe about a bunch of other stuff too that's way more important than a girl's concerns about, say, the quality of a man's tea selection. (Really, the only commonality between having sex and drinking tea is that both may involve some teabagging before the main event.)

"Unless the reason she's not wanting sex with him at that time is some factor, such as a bad yeast infection, that has nothing to do with how desirable she is to him, he's going to either feel bad about himself or feel badly toward her. Having to turn away men who want sex, and thereby either hurt them or provoke resentment, is another of the downsides of being a 'liberated woman'; under patriarchy, her father would've been the one to make the decision and break the bad news to prospective husbands that they had been rejected.

"But of course there's usually no hurry to have sex; if they don't have sex when he first tries to have sex with her, they always could later, after she's thought about it more, gotten to know him better, maybe talked with her girlfriends, etc. But in dating and courtship, people usually are just putting their best foot forward anyway when they're trying to get the other person to give them what they want; the full truth doesn't become evident until later. And are a girl's girlfriends likely to be any better than her at helping her arrive at the right decision? They're probably less likely, because they're not in her situation and won't be the ones to bear the direct consequences of the outcome.

"At the end of the day, she's going to decide based on being driven by a bunch of feelings, such as loneliness, or fear, or lust, or whatever. It really would make more sense to just let someone else decide, who's not an 18-year-old (or 15-years-old, or whatever age girls are these days when they're first having sex) woman, yet still has her best interests at heart, knows her well, and has enough maturity and experience to have a better idea of what would be in her best interests. There's really only one person who meets that description, and that's her father, if he's a good father.

"Because women often like to be forcibly taken against their expressed will (much as they like to drink alcohol and get inebriated to the point that they would legally be considered incapable of giving consent to the drunken sex they were planning on having even before they got drunk), the issue of willingness gets tricky, because in many cases, he's really just doing what she wanted. It's by force, and without her consent, but it doesn't meet the other criterion of rape, which is that it be against her will.

"It used to be, consent was determined by looking at whether she had chosen to marry a man. This could be objectively determined because it was a public record. The consent, once made, was irrevocable and ongoing. Fornication and adultery were illegal, so a man who had sex with her outside of marriage was criminally liable (regardless of consent or lack thereof). The legal issues were more clear-cut.

"Feminism created more of a haze of uncertainty, by making marriage no longer matter as much (to the point that today, marriage barely matters at all, and most couples don't even bother getting married). Women were being expected to do stuff, like make decisions about whether to consent to sex, that didn't come naturally to them because throughout human history, it was always men who made those decisions for them. They were expected to carry the burden of being the one to use logic rather than emotion to decide whether to open their legs to a man, so that they could see past clever ruses by which men try to deceive them into giving up sex when it wasn't in their best interests. In times past, this used to be the role of the father, who had more experience in the world than his young daughter.

"As it turned out, women were not capable of handling the responsibility well. The results of giving them that responsibility are the society we see around us (which was described in more detail in the Jim's Blog article 'The Feminine Imperative'). Meanwhile, men and women continued having sex pretty much as though the rules about 'no means no' didn't exist, and as before, those men who took the 'no' seriously and obeyed the rule to stop when she said to stop, and perhaps felt good about themselves for being good boys, got punished by not getting to have sex. Or they got sex, when she finally realized that saying 'yes' was the only way to get him to fuck her, but she resented having to say yes and ended up punishing him for it somewhere down the line. She resented having to carry that manly burden of making sexual decisions and live with those decisions, when it should be her male authority figure who is deciding and taking responsibility for the outcome.

"What we see happening now, is that even when women say 'yes' they later claim that they were bullied into consenting. So the whole 'no means no' rule which was supposed to make the issue of consent much more clear-cut, didn't actually have that effect. Men continued to be accused of rape, even after following all the rules.

"Meanwhile, after men forced themselves into girls' pussies even after she said 'no,' those girls in many cases were quite happy with what had happened, and they continued to have ongoing sexual relationships with their 'rapist', in which she said 'no' every time and put up resistance till he had his way with her. Those girls not only liked being 'raped,' they wouldn't have had it any other way; maybe they would've dumped him if he ever stopped behaving that way. If she ever reported him as a rapist, it was because their relationship didn't go the way she wanted (or perhaps their encounter never turned into a relationship at all, the way she had been hoping), or she wanted to evade responsibility for having chosen to have sex with him.

"To a woman, this is what rape actually is -- sex that she currently feels bad about. She can reclassify an act of sex that she engaged in as rape at any time. It is subjective and changing, at her whim, at whenever the moment is that she's thinking about the sex that she had and experiencing good or bad feelings. If she feels bad about it, then to her, that's her intuition telling her that she was raped (even if she said yes), and she trusts her intuition to the point that maybe she will tell a courtroom, 'He raped me' and claim that when he got rough with her during their lovemaking, she felt coerced.

"Of course, if she feels good about the sex she had, and gets turned on thinking about it, then that manhandling that she experienced, she'll interpret as just his being sexy and dominant in bed as a man should be. If he's continuing to fulfill her needs for protection, provisioning, and/or a strong male authority figure whom she can respect and look up to, as well as behaving unpredictably enough to add a certain amount of drama to her life to make it interesting, while also giving her intense, memorable and unexpected experiences in the sack (or wherever else they're having sex), and in general giving her a roller-coaster of emotions that gets her addicted to the highs, then maybe the thought that what's going on is "rape" won't cross her mind.

"But if he turns out to be weak, boring, or pathetic, to where she regrets ever opening her legs to him to begin with, or decides she no longer wants to be with him but unfortunately made a commitment to stay with him through thick and thin, then it may be convenient to decide that he raped her, and get a restraining order that says he has to stay away. This gives her the excuse (and perhaps the means, if she can extract some money from him) to go chase after a more powerful man, who has more ability (aka power) to make her happy.

"It's also probably possible that a man could rape a woman and then have a relationship with her in which she would eventually decide that the rape wasn't bad, and she doesn't mind that it happened. Maybe she'll even conclude it was the best thing that ever happened to her, if it led to a good life. The only question is whether he has the power to give her that life, and uses his power for that purpose.

"So yes, rape is about power, but not in the way feminists think. If a man has sex with a woman, and he has the power to keep her enough in love or lust with him to keep wanting to be with him -- not necessarily at the moment she decides to open her legs with him, but later rather, when she's deciding whether she wants to accuse him of rape -- then for practical purposes, what happened wasn't rape. She won't feel raped, and he won't go to prison.

"If a man has sex with a woman, and turns out to be unable (i.e. lacking in the power) to keep her happy with her decision to have sex with him, then she may make a rape accusation. If criminal charges are brought and a jury ultimately accepts and believes that accusation, then for all practical purposes, she was indeed raped. She feels raped, and he goes to prison for rape, so it's just as if he actually did rape her, even if at the time of the sex, she was fine with it and said 'yes'. The only one who insists he didn't rape her is the man she accused, and nobody cares what he thinks, because he's just another convicted rapist trying to justify or deny his behavior.

"Fortunately, our criminal courts require proof beyond a reasonable doubt, so such false convictions probably are rare. The family courts, on the other hand, have a lower standard of proof, and so men can lose their kids and be placed under restraining orders (losing their right to possess a gun, etc.) based on spurious allegations.

"So the lesson for men is, don't worry about 'no means no'. Worry about being powerful. And watch out for girls who are so crazy that no man has the power to control their erratic behavior (without resorting to extreme measures that make it not worth the trouble) or make them happy. Those are the girls who make the most rape accusations, because they don't believe they're worthy of a good man, they don't feel secure even when they're with a man who uses his power to try to give them a good life, and their paranoia drives them to distrust him and suspect him of bad motives to the point they want to unleash their anger at him to feel powerful and important for once and at the center of attention. They usually have severe daddy issues, in which they're always looking for a man who can give them the kind of healthy relationship they wanted to have with their dad, leading them to seek it out by trying to win men's favor through sex; yet in the end, their own insecurities drive them to destroy the relationship.

"It's the same way with girls who have had a tumultuous relationship history. They're damaged to the point that no man can ever make them happy now, because of their bitterness that men didn't create the opportunity for them to enjoy their youthful years the way they would've liked, by guiding them (by force if necessary) along a path that would've made them happy. Or they've been traumatized to the point that their feelings are easily triggered by the slightest perceived threat, and then to make sense of it and not feel crazy they come up with justifications for their unpleasant feelings, such as that the man they're with is a rapist. This is probably why courts used to investigate rape accusers' mental health and history of promiscuity, although of course rape shield laws have curtailed that somewhat.

"Girls like that, unfortunately, aren't good for much now other than to be locked in a dungeon and used as rape-slaves. Mentally ill girls sometimes can be a source of great sex, and they typically love being raped even more than normal girls do. Girls who have been traumatized often become highly sensitive, like a therapy dog, to the subtlest aspects of others' feelings, being able to figure out exactly how they tick. Such girls often make great prostitutes because they can read their customers' emotions well enough to figure out exactly what will get him off. During sex, they can adjust their sexual technique on the fly as they sense subtle shifts of his mood that give her cues as to what to do to enhance his experience and give him exactly what he wants and needs.

"Lacking any strong identity of their own, because they feel so empty inside and so lacking in self-worth, they can easily shape-shift to take on whatever identity their customer will find most exciting. Thus, their customers end up getting addicted to them. Some prostitutes have also learned, through years of traumatic experience, to be able to disconnect sex from their emotions, and thus they can tolerate being treated in extremely degrading ways, which other women might balk at.

"Like kind bud during an era of cannabis prohibition, prostitutes with just the right combination of mental illnesses to make them the perfect pleasure slaves can be a rare commodity in our own time because they often end in the mental hospital, or dead by their own hand, due to their instability. But to have a dungeon full of such rape-slaves would be wonderful for when one is simply looking for a peak sexual experience rather than a wife who is stable enough to perhaps be able to function in a regular house rather than having to be confined in a dark cellar where she can't hurt anyone.

Nathan Larson rallies the incel troops: "You have nothing to lose but your virginity"

4 January 2018 — Catlett, Virginia — In a scene reminiscent of the American Pie pact speech, neoreactionary libertarian congressional candidate Nathan Larson issued a call to action to his incel followers.

"Brothers, we are now poised to become the next great civil rights movement," Larson said with a smile. "For incels, rape is no different than Rosa Parks refusing to move to the back of the bus. Even though the bus was not considered her property, she chose to sit there anyway, and occupy it by force. She enlisted the help of her friends in the black community to ensure that a day would come when she would have a legally enforceable right to occupy it, and that became a reality.

"Incels who band together to take women by force are simply our generation's Freedom Riders. A past generation staged sit-ins, occupying restaurants; incels will stage penis-ins, occupying women's vaginas. Gang rape is just activism by other means. We represent a continuation of the Occupy Wall Street movement, except this time it's Occupy Pussy. (Since the Occupy movement hand signals only require the use of one's arms to communicate agreement, disagreement, etc., we can work toward reaching consensus at our assemblies while simultaneously plowing chicks against their will using our lower bodies.)

"Likewise, it is now established that gay couples can force a baker to make a wedding cake for them, under penalty of getting sued for emotional damages. What about the emotional damage incels suffer when girls open their legs to Chad but not to them? Feminists, in arguing for women to have the right to engage in this hateful discrimination, are no different than the KKK or the gay bashers of Westboro Baptist Church.

"We haven't had some good IRL activism, that I know of, since 23 May 2014. Regrettably, one of the limitations of Elliot Rodger's style of direct action is that he won't be able to take part in further work on our behalf. So perhaps we can try some other form of outreach.

"This year presents an opportunity, as 33 U.S. Senate seats, 435 U.S. House seats, and countless local and state positions are up for election. I suggest that it's time to run candidates on an incel rights platform. (By the way, the age requirements to serve in federal office are 25 for U.S. House and 30 for U.S. Senate, but the local and state offices often allow younger people to serve.)

"There are two ways to go about this. Either run in a major party primary, or run in the general election as an independent or on a third party ticket. Either way, you won't win, but the goal is to raise awareness and show that the incel movement is serious about getting engaged in real world politics, rather than just an online phenomenon.

"The target audience is primarily incels who haven't yet been brought into the movement. The goal is to inspire them to get involved in the incel community and become active in fighting for their rights. We also need to continue searching for our lost brothers who got separated from the main group during the great shut-it-downing last November, so we can reorganize and return our formations to full strength.

"A secondary audience consists of potentially allied movements, such as neoreaction, that currently are politically dormant. Just like women, as the weaker sex, tend to yield to men, the weaker political movements tend to yield to the stronger and follow their lead. They become absorbed into the stronger movement just like women are absorbed into the family of their husband and take his name and live in his house and cuddle up to him in bed to feel comforted by his strong, protecting body.

"A secondary audience consists of normies. How do we reach normies? Mostly through the incels they know. If today, an incel tells his family, 'I need an incel revolution!' they may say, 'Stop dreaming.' What if there's an actual political movement? Then it starts to seem like maybe change is really afoot. The incels are on the march.

"An advantage of involvement in the political process is that the election serves as a current event that becomes a conversation piece. It provides a 'hook' for addressing the incel cause in articles about the upcoming choice voters will make. Another advantage is that it gives people a concrete action they can take, viz., voting for a candidate, that allows them to invest in the incel cause and feel like they made a difference, even if just by making their voices heard. Once people have made a small investment like that, they're more open to making larger investments.

"How does one go about doing an incel campaign? The first step is, you have to sign up to run. So, you either pay a filing fee or gather a certain number of signatures, depending on the laws of your state. Gathering signatures is mostly a matter of starting early (e.g. right now) and putting in a lot of time standing outside in places with lots of passers-by (e.g. a department of motor vehicles office) and, as people are leaving, saying something along the lines of, 'I'm _____ and I'm running for U.S. Congress. I'm gathering signatures for ballot access so you can have another choice in November. Signing doesn't mean you're going to vote for me, it's just to allow me to run.'

"A large number of voters are fed up with the current politicians and bored or disgruntled with politics as usual, and looking to hear some new voices, so they'll sign. Typically they won't even ask about your stances, because they want to just continue on their way. But if they ask, you can speak in generalities about your political philosophy and a few stances you think the public will be receptive to. It really doesn't matter what you say because the majority won't ask and this part of the process is mostly just about getting on the ballot rather than outreach. You'll have platforms for reaching a larger audience once you obtain ballot access, as the blogosphere and the reporters take notice of you.

"At the stage of petitioning, you don't really get into your more unusual ideas because, while the voters secretly do want candidates who will put forth unorthodox opinions (much like, over at places like /r/IncelTears and /r/TheBluePill, they probably are secretly glad reddits like ours exist), they don't necessarily want to be associated with those ideas till those ideas go more mainstream. They want plausible deniability that they knew when they signed that you had some unusual ideas. Maybe a few voters actually would prefer full disclosure before signing, but they're kind of irrelevant anyway because even if they refused to sign, it wouldn't stop you from, with enough tenacity, getting enough signatures from others to get on the ballot.

"The key to getting people to sign is mostly how you present yourself. Even if you're ugly, you'll look slightly less ugly when you have a cheerful countenance. Also, the oldest trick in the book for guys to try to compensate for their ugliness is to wear a nice suit.

"Therefore, you want to dress reasonably well and maintain a happy, positive demeanor. And why wouldn't you be happy? You're helping them and you're helping yourself. The women you run into need patriarchy just as much as the men, because they need the guidance of a strong man who's empowered to keep them in line. The men need patriarchy because they need society to stop putting them in a subordinate position to women, to where they aren't empowered to do what they need to do as men and play their proper leadership role. You can check out the asses of the girls who are walking away and think, 'That can be mine after we win this revolution.'

"When you're standing out there getting signatures, even then, you're achieving a measure of success in a way. You run into men who at least, by signing, are giving you the opportunity to have a platform from which to be heard. And can't most men relate to your concerns; haven't even a lot of the beta cucks spent years as sexually frustrated teenagers before they acquired some beta bucks with which to buy used-up pussy that Chad had already ejaculated inside of? On some level, they know your struggle and will understand later on in the campaign when they find out what specifically you're about. Maybe they too will have sons who are all depressed because they can't get any pussy. So they need your help.

"In gathering signatures, you're also asking women to do what you want, and they're saying yes, because society has said what you're asking them to do is totally normal and beneficial. Well, isn't that just how they're going to be after the revolution? Society will say to young women, 'You should marry this incel' and they'll do it because women tend to happily go with the flow when given instructions by the patriarchs in their family, their church, their society? As a candidate for public office, you're sort of a quasi-patriarch, so they automatically feel drawn to obey what you tell them to do. (As Donald Trump said, 'when you're a star, they let you do it.')

"(And yes, because you are a man who is petitioning, you tell women to sign your petition; you don't ask them if they would like to sign. Women don't like to be offered a choice by a man and given the burden of deciding. You tell the women you approach what you're doing, you close with a statement that assumes the sale, and you hand them the petition and pen (i.e. you put an idea to sign into her head, and those physical items into her hands, so that as with everything else between men and women, it's a confident, decisive, purposeful act of insertion, using the right amount of force and initiative to accomplish what you want, much like if one were on a date with a woman, one might take her to a bar to put some alcohol in her; and then maybe after taking her to some secluded spot, put one's hand up her shirt and one's tongue in her mouth; and then maybe take her home to enjoy putting one's penis not only in that hole but the other two as well, so that everything that could possibly be penetrated, has been penetrated.

"It's an apt analogy because if men never flirted with women and tried to get them into bed, women's lives would be as loveless as any incel's. Likewise, if candidates didn't approach and ask for signatures, the voters would be without alternative choices. Now one might say, the system by which men and women meet these days and get together for sex is not as respectful and conducive to meeting everyone's needs and ultimately building strong families as, say, a different system, such as arranged marriage. And I would agree, much as I would agree that the system of petitioning to get on the ballot isn't ideal, because it asks that voters make their decision on the spot with little information. It would be better to let voters sign petitions online, where they would have ample opportunity to do whatever research they want to do about the candidates before signing.

"I used to worry, maybe at some point the voters won't sign my petitions anymore, once I become more well-recognized and people become aware I'm a guy with some pretty controversial proposals. Then I realized, that'll never happen, unless men are actively working to influence their wives, daughters, etc. not to sign, and maybe not even then. The reason is that women, especially young women, never really 'get smart' and learn not to trust men who try to lead them down certain paths.

"They never learn to stop believing in, say, religion, astrology, or fortune-telling, until they get burned really badly by a scammer; and even then, they'll probably just get hooked by another scam. They never stop buying useless junk from persuasive salesmen, unless there's a man running the household who keeps them from controlling the family pocketbook. They never learn to stop opening their legs for men who know how to charm them, till it's too late and he already took her virginity.

"This has been going on since the dawn of humanity and will always go on. Women are easy to influence, once you figure out how to manipulate their emotions. It's a skill that most men are not very good at, and even I am not operating at a very advanced level at it; but those who are able to master it reap a lot of benefits. They get women to give them money, give them sex, commit crimes for them, and do whatever else they want. These men are labeled as sociopaths, but who wouldn't abuse their power in that way if they had a gift for controlling women's feelings and behavior like they're puppets on a string? It's like the skill Hitler had at using oratory to sway an entire nation to follow his agenda and support him as their leader.

"Writers at the Washington Post probably think they can use the written word to deter voters from signing a candidate's petition. But Hitler proved that the spoken word is stronger than the written word. So there will always be more Jane Lakemans, because what's written in a newspaper can't defeat what's presented in person.)

"And you'll notice, ladies often look happy when they're signing, just like they'll look happy someday when you're in bed with them and telling them what position you want them to get into for sex. Girls like to be ordered around and do stuff that pleases strong men, and guess what, by enduring the physical pain of standing out there for hours and overcoming any shyness you might have about approaching members of the public, you're showing you're a strong man.

"Running for office takes courage. That's the whole point. If it were easy, it wouldn't be as impressive. It wouldn't demonstrate balls, and therefore people wouldn't take notice of it as much. As an ugly man, you need to go above and beyond what more physically attractive men do, in showing you have balls that more than compensate what you lack. This is how you prove that you deserve pussy, even more than the handsome man who doesn't have balls. Whatever you have to do to get in a frame of mind where you can feel poised and confident and even enjoy what you're doing, you do.

"To paraphrase Proverbs 4:7, 'Balls are the principal thing; therefore get balls'. Or to paraphrase John Lennon, 'All you need are balls, balls, balls are all you need.' When you feel scared of what people will think of your campaign, guess what? That's an opportunity for you to quell those emotions, step forward anyway, and thereby show you have balls. You have nothing to lose; you're incel. Your genetic line is going to end with you unless you get creative and ballsy about how you seek out pussy. Don't go down without a fight; use your testicles to achieve what your face can't.

"Just like your penis is crying out to be thrust into a woman so it can fulfill its purpose, your testicles demand to be used too, so that the sperm they produce can someday swim up girls' vaginas and into their wombs, where those girls' eggs wait to be used for your purposes too. Harness that testosterone emanating from within your scrotum to conquer your feelings of fear, anxiety, depression, angst, boredom, distraction, and worry -- the same feelings that plague women when they're not under the leadership, protection, and provision of a dominant man. Let your sack of testicles be the swinging amulet, the magical charm you carry around with you everywhere you go, that allows you to feel powerful, confident, competitive, aggressive, and focused in ways that women can never achieve on their own, and therefore need a strong man to lean on for support.)

"The only time girls resist the rule of patriarchs is when those patriarchs are mismanaging them and saying they need to, say, go to school rather than get married at 15 and start a family; or when they've become embittered by getting banged out by Chad and not getting to marry him (which again, is the result of male mismanagement of the female population). We won't mismanage them like that, though, so they'll be quite happy under our rule.

"So yes, you're already seeing a foreshadowing of the future. Today, women sign a petition. Someday, they'll be opening their legs to us. One act of using women as objects to accomplish your goals leads to another. One act of women following incel leadership hints at another to come.

"The key is, no matter how many people say no, if you start early and follow the proper formula for getting signatures, and put in the necessary hours, you can't lose. So you can maintain a sense of optimism and determination that way that leads to success. After you succeed, then you'll have even more confidence and experience the next time around, and it'll go easier.

"If you start out and everyone is saying 'no,' don't worry about it. It happens to everyone sometimes. There will be locations that aren't fruitful and days when you don't get good results because the voters are in a foul mood. Just experiment with changing your formula of how you get signatures, till you find one that works. If your voice shakes and your body trembles with timidity, to the point that girls get uneasy and won't sign, don't worry about it. This means you're taking a step outside of your comfort zone to expand what you're capable of.

"Stay the course till what you're doing begins to feel normal to you, and you become desensitized enough to responses other than what you had in mind that you can have a 'zero fucks given' attitude that enables you to obtain victory. Those girls who thought you seemed weird or creepy, you'll probably never see again, and if you do, who cares. On to the next.

"Even if you're depressed right now, if you start taking action and making a difference in the world, it's going to improve your mood. You may not have pussy now, but taking some action in furtherance of getting pussy someday in the future will make you feel happier, and help you get through these hard times of inceldom. That's my experience, anyway.

"When it's all done, at least there will be an interesting story to tell. Win or lose, a struggle makes for a more exciting drama than lying down. And putting a dissent on record today at least gets people thinking; it drops a seed into the ground that may remain dormant for years but someday sprout under the right conditions.

"The idea that every man should be able to have pussy is not so revolutionary. Why not; society recognizes that they should feed, clothe, and shelter everyone, even the poor. What's so wrong with the idea that every man should have the nice warm pussy of a beautiful teenage virginal bride to slide into? There's nothing wrong with it; it's achievable now with the right policies and will be even more easily achievable in the future with the right technology.

"The online community is good as a place for discussing ideas that can become part of incel political platforms, providing moral support for those who do run, and organizing and coordinating online and IRL activity. Taking the additional step of emerging out from the cover of anonymity to go out boldly and openly into the streets for IRL activism can be orders of magnitude more powerful, though, in influencing people and changing the world.

"For one thing, when you run a political campaign, you have to organize your thoughts, come up with a platform, and figure out how to defend that platform against criticisms that people make. So it has an effect of stimulating and focusing thought and making you a better proponent of your ideas.

"You don't actually need a complete platform at the beginning; you can start out with some relatively vague proposals, and expand and revise as you go along. The most important thing is to take action early to get on the ballot, to make sure you achieve that before it's too late. That's actually priority #1 in a campaign, since without that, the rest is moot.

Nathan Larson notes that women wish Roosh V were a pro-rape blogger

3 January 2018 — Catlett, Virginia — Neoreactionary libertarian congressional candidate Nathan Larson noted today that women wish Roosh V were a pro-rape blogger.

"Every man, in his heart of hearts, is pro-rape, and so is every woman," Larson remarked. "Men want to own beautiful women, and women want to be owned by powerful men. When rape, i.e. the use of power to force women to have sex, becomes legal, then there will be more instances of women being overpowered by men, which will fulfill the fantasies those girls have been getting horny over as they sit around reading romance novels and putting a hand down their panties to gratify themselves.

"One might say that girls are already get raped all the time by Chad's hunky looks, smooth talk, and foreplay, because she got swept away by them to the point she felt like she couldn't help but open her legs. She supposedly didn't come over to his place for sex; it was just to have a cup of coffee with him, but she got turned on when Chad was saying all the right things and kissing her and feeling her up and getting rough with her and showing his manly strength. He didn't physically force her to open her legs, but because of how he looked and acted, she couldn't resist, as she wasn't able to use logic to control her emotions, the way a man might.

"This is what girls say -- 'One thing led to another.' 'It just happened.' She was an object, not a person with agency. A chain of events unfolded, and her opening her legs was merely one small link in that chain leading to Chad's ultimately thrusting into her pussy and ejaculating inside of her. One of the advantages of her role's being to be 'swept away' by his advances is that it's much easier for her later to say that it was all his fault (or maybe even that she was raped) if their having sex didn't produce results that she liked, because she can point out that he was the one who initiated everything while she only responded. (Of course, if he had behaved in any other way, she would have considered him not much of a man.)

"Still, there are many other ways in which men can overpower women besides charm. A lot of women also enjoy the brute force, aka caveman approach. Given that so many women make false rape accusations, it starts to seem after awhile that one may as well just cut to the chase and actually rape them rather than try to seduce them, since the same result (i.e. a rape accusation) may happen either way. If one is going to do the time, one may as well do the crime.

"Women would love if Roosh actually were a pro-rape blogger, because they've been waiting for a man step forward and say, 'Enough of these girls' bratty behavior. Let's just go ahead and rape them.' For a moment, it seemed like maybe Roosh was that man.

"But then they tested him, and he backed down. He didn't stand up for his beliefs; instead, he said he was being satirical and that his essay was a thought experiment. Maybe so, but he was on the right track with his ideas.

"Do you think it's just a coincidence that the same man who wrote an essay saying legal rape could benefit women, also wrote an essay saying women need to have the behavior and decisions controlled by men? These two ideas are one and the same, really. It means fathers will be deciding whom their daughters will marry, and a woman's husband will be deciding when, how often, in what holes, etc., he's going to have sex with her. Which is another way of saying, she's going to be raped. Men will be deciding with whom she has sex and when, and how often, and in what manner; that sounds pretty rapey to me.

"If a woman has been allowed by her husband to wander around freely to where she can have sex with random men, then she's basically abandoned property that's been left unprotected from theft. Either she's a fallen woman whose promiscuity has rendered her only good for use as a prostitute, in which case it doesn't really matter if she gets raped since a ho can't be turned into a housewife anyway; or she's in danger of becoming such. It would not be unreasonable in such a case, if she purposefully wandered onto the property of some man, for him to rape her and thereby claim her as his own property, and put her under submission to him and become her new owner. Her father is not doing the job of taking care of her, so this man is free to take over that important role, and in return take her pussy as his reward. The rapist, the woman, and society all benefit from this. Roosh's idea, if implemented that way, was perfectly valid and workable. (See also 'What rape is and what it isn't' for some similar thoughts.)

"The reason women rage against Roosh is that, when they read that essay, for a brief moment they thought that maybe they finally had a real man on their hands, someone who had enough balls to say it was time to use rape to put women in their place. But then he cracked under pressure, saying he didn't really mean it; and in their bitter disappointment they decided to demonstrate that they weren't going to let him go so easily; they were going to continue punishing him till he realized his error in backing down, and reversed course to double down on his original pro-rape stance. Whether Roosh intended to or not, he triggered those girls' desire for rape, and now women all the way up to Theresa May will continue to pester him till that craving is satisfied. It's all just one relentless shit test, as they continue to hope that he'll finally just get it.

"That's what happens when you get women hot and bothered thinking about being raped and then don't actually give them the fulfillment of their fantasy; they get frustrated and want to take it out on you, in hopes you'll finally get annoyed enough to go ahead and hate-fuck them so they'll leave you alone. Basically, these women are slapping the cigar out of Roosh's mouth like what Callie Travers did to the Stranger in High Plains. It's a form of flirtation. Notice how the female journalists couldn't help but show up at the Roosh V press conference even though they worried aloud they might be committing a journalistic sin in doing so.

"Obviously most of these women are not worth raping, but there are also still some desirable girls out there looking for a strong man to dominate them, and if Roosh would stay the course and not be ashamed of who he is and what he believes, he probably would dampen more girls' panties just with the aura of his masculine self-assurance. It would probably help with his inner game if he would, instead of feeling self-conscious about it, take pride in penning an essay whose implications for bringing about a delightfully rapey future have the potential to sexually excite many women.

"Women like to relinquish decision-making to men. But even more, they like for men to just take what they want, to the point of overpowering them by manly force if needed. Every girl loves for a man to hold her down during sex while she tries to get away. They like it rough. They like displays of male power and strength in every arena, including the bedroom. Legalizing rape just opens up another arena for the exercise of male dominance, allowing men to exercise control over women and render women truly helpless so that those women can feel protected and safe, even against their own harmful impulses to do what they want when their husband knows better what's good for them. There is no conflict of interest in letting him have control, because what's good for a woman's husband is usually good for her also.

"Indeed, it's actually good for a wife if her husband rapes her, because then he feels satisfied and happy and can be loving toward her and do what he needs to do as a man, feeling sexually satisfied. It makes him feel confident and powerful, to where he can then do the heavy lifting that feminine women expect to be able to leave to their husbands. It's not in a woman's self-interest for her to be allowed to demoralize her husband and make him feel inferior and inadequate by not even showing him some soothing and invigorating affection by accepting him into her body. When women hurt their husbands by denying them sex, and more specifically when society lets them get away with this, they basically chop off his balls to where he can't function properly as a man because he's been humbled by being placed below the level of his wife, when he should be on top. Women don't like when men are placed in positions subordinate to them; they lose attraction and there ends up being a dead bedroom.

"Even now, when rape and domestic violence are illegal, sexy young women deliberately seek out brutal men who are willing to break the rules. They may later seek protection from the consequences of this, but it would actually be better if her husband could and would force her to stay with him. It would save many a family.

"Well, guess what. This campaign is about men, collectively, doing just that. It's about men being powerful enough, and having the balls, to take what their sense of self-worth tells them is rightfully theirs, and stake a claim to women's pussies and defend their property for their own enjoyment. Remember what Ayn Rand said, that man's ego is the fountainhead of human progress. Ayn Rand was also fond of the idea of strong men raping women, if you recall some of the scenes in her novels.

"Women are going to like when marital rape is re-legalized and when fathers again have the right to control their daughters and choose a husband for them. They're going to like having some order and structure imposed on their lives by strong men whose masculinity can override the female emotionality that would otherwise lead to self-destructive behavior and chaos if men did not keep it in check. And men are definitely going to enjoy the new state of affairs.

"The only kind of rape that should be illegal should be rape of another man's wife, and that should be punished by death. And if a wife willingly allowed another man to have sex with her, then not only should the man who had sex with her (and thereby violated her husband's property rights) be executed, but she should die too, because a woman like that is no good to anyone. She has irretrievably broken the relationship and failed in her most important duty in life, which was to be loyal and faithful to her husband. There is no way that he can have self-respect and truly be her lord and master to whom she can look up to, after letting her get away with that, so he must put his foot down and insist that she be punished with death. Without adequate boundaries, there's chaos.

"But a man should be allowed to have sex with other women besides his wife because in that case, there in no rebellion against the authority figure of the relationship, since he is that authority figure. It's only rebellion if she does it. When you are the king, you make the rules, so he is free to make a rule that says that he is allowed to have sex with other women but she isn't allowed to have sex with other men.

"It's actually beneficial for a wife anyway if her husband goes around trying to have sex with other women, because his making those approaches is a keystone habit that will tend to improve him in a variety of ways. He may start lifting weights and buying some new and better clothes and trying to advance in his career to attract those other women; he may start trying out some new sexual movies on his wife that he intends to use on those other women; etc. He also stops being a total doormat for his wife, because he has other options; and this in turn makes him happier. In this way, he becomes more attractive to his wife, and their marriage improves. The alternative is that he becomes like Al Bundy who stops bothering to even take care of his basic hygiene because he feels that, being married with children, he can't pursue other women, so therefore there's no point in working on self-improvement or even maintaining his attractiveness.

"I may not always get a lot of ass, and maybe some people say I don't have a lot to offer women. But what I do have is an unwavering sense of my own entitlement to pussy, and a belief that I deserve to get it; and I have the courage of my convictions. I have that element of masculinity at least. It almost makes me want to go out there and see if I can get pussy just on that basis alone, by approaching some girls. But it's a slutty world out there, with a lot of girls passing around diseases; and at any rate, duty to country calls first. Let me get this country squared away to where patriarchy has been restored to the land, and men can actually play their dominant role without white knights' enabling girls to throw off their proper male authority; and then I can do the stuff I want to do without going to jail."

Nathan Larson urges incels, don't give up the fight for pussy

3 January 2018 — Catlett, Virginia — Neoreactionary libertarian congressional candidate Nathan Larson encouraged incels to keep fighting for what they want.

"My brothers, don't let what the femoids say dismay or deter you," Larson advised. "Remember, if we win the revolution, those same girls who call you a loser today, you could be raping tomorrow. That'll put 'em to silence. At that point, they'll be too busy choking on your cock while you pull their hair to jam yourself further down their throat, or screaming out in pain as you take their other two orifi by force, to give you any backtalk.

"To paraphrase Bob Marley, get up, stand up for your right. Don't give up the fight. Pussy is your right.

"Don't let the white knights or manginas discourage you. You have as much of a claim to girls' pussies as anyone else; it's only a matter of fighting hard enough, using whatever force multipliers you need to use, to obtain it.

"People may say, it's the course of natural selection that some may don't get chosen by women for sex. Yes, but that's only one of many mechanisms of mate choice. What about the market? What about buying and selling women? That's another way of determining fitness of men, by allowing those capable of acquiring money to have them.

"What about force? That's another test of fitness, which allows men who are smart enough or strong enough to win a physical fight for pussy to get it.

"Why should everything come down to being able to seduce women, and charm them into bed through looks or charisma or game?

"No, you're as worthy of pussy as anyone else, if you can prove by some means or another that you're able to obtain it and hold onto it. Historically, conquest has been viewed as a way of obtaining just title to land and other property. To the victors go the spoils. Even libertarians will sometimes recognize title obtained through conquest as valid for all practical purposes. Mises writes in Socialism:

The Law recognizes owners and possessors who lack this natural having, owners who do not have, but ought to have. In the eyes of the Law 'he from whom has been stolen' remains owner, while the thief can never acquire ownership. Economically, however, the natural having alone is relevant, and the economic significance of the legal should have lies only in the support it lends to the acquisition, the maintenance, and the regaining of the natural having.

Also:

All ownership derives from occupation and violence. When we consider the natural components of goods, apart from the labour components they contain, and when we follow the legal title back, we must necessarily arrive at a point where this title originated in the appropriation of goods accessible to all. Before that we may encounter a forcible expropriation from a predecessor whose ownership we can in its turn trace to earlier appropriation or robbery. That all rights derive from violence, all ownership from appropriation or robbery, we may freely admit to those who oppose ownership on considerations of natural law. But this offers not the slightest proof that the abolition of ownership is necessary, advisable, or morally justified.

Natural ownership need not count upon recognition by the owners' fellow men. It is tolerated, in fact, only as long as there is no power to upset it and it does not survive the moment when a stronger man seizes it for himself. Created by arbitrary force it must always fear a more powerful force.

"If you can obtain virginal pussy by force and make it yours, what can anyone really say? The Bible used to just pretty much acknowledge that the rapist had earned it, and let the rapist pay her father fifty shekels of silver to make her his wife. A girl whose virginity had been taken was no good to any other man but the rapist, so the rapist might as well keep her. That biological truth is still in effect today, although people may not acknowledge it.

"If I can fight for incels' rights, so can you. So get out there and fight. That's how you prove that you're worthy of pussy. If you don't fight for it, by some means or another, then I guess you were unworthy, because the law of nature is that whoever doesn't strive by whatever means necessary to obtain, and win the battle, is for all practical purposes unworthy, because nobody is going to care about his claims that he wasn't willing to fight for.

"Pussy goes to the strong, and even now, in modern times, young and pretty girls have a certain amount of hardwiring that makes them go after the muscular, tattooed 'bad boys' who can push other men around and who don't take any shit from anyone, including women. Well, prove that you're the same way. Gain enough strength, whether it's in politics or some other arena, that you're able to take what you want. And if the girls don't voluntarily recognize your strength and feel attracted to it to the point they want to open their legs to you, then make them recognize your strength by pushing them down and opening their legs by force.

"Do what you have to do to get pussy. Those girls, and their white knight enablers, may say that you're a loser for wanting to rape women. But they already consider you a loser for not getting pussy. The only way you can prove you're not a loser is by proving you can get pussy. It doesn't matter how you get it. Just get it. Show those women who's boss.

"When you're able to use force to make them do what they want, and they don't have anyone they can appeal to for help who can overpower you, they'll simply have to accept the new situation. And at that point, she will be a wife like any other. There have been many wives throughout history who were taken by force, whether because they were slaves and their master wanted them, or whatever. That's how you create a bloodline that continues for generations. Some of those bloodlines still exist today.

"Guess what, those rapists are now enshrined as ancestors in the family tree. Good for them. You may as well take your place in that pantheon of men who were able to obtain pussy.

"It's actually more meaningful if you're able to fight against obstacles and obtain pussy, than if girls just gave it to you. It's actually more impressive, in a way. The cute guys who can get girls to open their legs pretty easily don't have to struggle like we do. But with enough effort, you can overcome disadvantages. It's like how in the workplace, hard work often substitutes for a lack of talent, that enables the diligent worker to advance ahead of the smart but lazy guy in the next cubicle, who isn't as productive, because he doesn't apply his mind to the job.

"So don't let anyone make you give up on your ambition without a fight. Go into the city if you have to, and watch the pretty girls pass by, to motivate yourself. Work up a desire to have a girl as your rape-slave, and join with me in pursuit of that goal.

"Some might ask, where do you get this idea, that men have a right to pussy? The truth is, it came from my mind. I made it up.

"Every human right that is recognized today was originally made up out of thin air because men thought it would serve their purposes; and those rights came into practical existence when men fought to make them a reality and defend them against those who would encroach on them. Sometimes this required trampling on rights that others had made up out of thin air, but were too weak to defend.

"Or sometimes certain systems of rights ended up being unworkable, and had to be abandoned. That's how we learn. For example, feminism, or women's rights, has turned out to be an unworkable system, and must be abandoned in favor of patriarchy. It sounded like a good system, but didn't work. Therefore we must get rid of it, to save society. When men's right to pussy is acknowledged and protected, I believe there will be greater happiness for the men, women, and children of our country. At any rate, it's a system that sounds like it's worth a try, don't you agree, my incel brothers?

"So I say, if you want pussy, and aren't getting it (or simply want more pussy, or better quality pussy), let's make up a right to that pussy out of thin air, and go fight for it. Let's find a way to make our dream a reality."

Nathan Larson advises men that they should quit social media and ban their wives, sons, and daughters from using it

31 December 2017 — Catlett, Virginia — Neoreactionary libertarian congressional candidate Nathan Larson suggested today that men should quit social media and ban their wives, sons, and daughters from using it.

"Delete and block all of your Facebook friends so that you won't be tempted to come back," Larson suggested. "Men should ban from social media not only themselves but also:

"(1) Their wives. Femoids on social media (a) are constantly collecting admiring beta orbiters who shower them with attention, creating temptation to stray; and (b) get caught up in a competition with other femoids to show off who has the best life. The result is, femoids devote more effort to looking good on social media than to actually trying to please their husband so that they can get positive attention from him.

"A man who lets his wife go on social media is inviting the whole world to cuckold him by taking his place as the one who gives her attention in exchange for her loving devotion. She can't devote herself to him when she's devoting herself to trying to impress her online 'friends'.

"(2) Their daughters. Girls who use social media are less pleasant to be around because they constantly have their face in a smartphone rather than engaging with the people who are around them IRL. This inhibits girls from forming meaningful real-life relationships, making them more dependent on the fake friends they hang out with on social media. They also become arrogant from all the approval they get online, which is based on the propaganda she puts out there about herself.

"In real life relationships, girls have to watch their behavior lest they get a bad reputation, and their friends get to know their downsides as well as their upsides. This serves as a reality check to restrain a girl's grandiosity. Online, all those checks are removed, leaving her narcissism free to run wild.

"She learns to put slutty photos out there for the boys to look at, because that's what attracts likes and compliments. She gets addicted to the attention which inflates her ego, and her arrogant self-importance escalates to the point that when a nice man approaches her in real life, she thinks that he's not good enough for her because she has so many other options. She considers herself a celebrity who deserves only the best.

"Oh, poor delusional little social media starlet, don't you realize men are so thirsty for sex and positive female attention these days they'll fall all over themselves trying to compliment anything and everything they see online that has two tits and a pussy? Those men are only infatuated with you because you've spent all your time constructing an airbrushed version of yourself and your life, where you only put your best foot forward, and nobody really gets to know you because they never see your flaws (other than your most glaring flaw, which is that you're a social media addict).

"Imagine what's going to happen when the mask comes off and you have to try to have a real relationship. You're still going to be off in your Facebook, Instagram, and Snapchat la-la lands where everything is perfect, because you spend all your time finding ways to present an idealized image of yourself and what you're about rather than paying attention to your husband or anything else around you in the real world. Your real life will therefore fall apart due to neglect and you'll have to delete your social media accounts to hide from the embarrassment.

"In reality, though your daughter may indeed be a pretty girl, there are many other pretty girls out there too who have the advantage that unlike her, they haven't let social media turn them into conceited, self-absorbed attention whores wasting their time taking selfies wherever they go rather than actually experiencing life and engaging with other people. A discerning man will recognize those more modest and conservative girls as superior and choose accordingly, leaving your daughter either lonely or having to settle more a man she thinks is beneath her, and feeling resentful about it and always having a wandering eye.

"(3) Their sons. Boys who use social media become beta orbiters because it's so tempting to hit the 'like' button on a cute girl's posts, compliment her, and offer to help her with her homework, so that she'll say, 'Aw, you're such a good friend' which makes him think, 'All right! I've made it into the friendzone, so maybe it's only a short leap from here to the pussyzone. I'm making progress!'

"When you hit the like button on a girl's posts, you're basically sticking a knife between an incel's ribs. It's like voodoo. All the attention and approval you give those girls for free means that they don't need to seek the love that an incel could've given them. Not only are you not going to get pussy, but another incel is going to have to go without pussy too because you acted like the male equivalent of a slut, giving away your attention and assistance without even getting her to open her legs to you in return.

"Meanwhile, her daddy is probably paying her way through school, so she doesn't need beta bucks. She can go bang Chad, get emotional support via Facebook from beta boy (without giving him any pussy), and get her dad to buy her a new red Acura to drive to school in. Her life is a dream, while meanwhile incels are wanting to stick a gun in their mouths.

"And why? Because of that damn cuck who let himself be used as her emotional tampon, thinking he could get into her pants that way. No, that just makes it easier for her to go back to Chad and be sweet to him after she gets all that complaining about his jerk behavior out of her system.

"Boys should instead study hard, learn a trade, and when they come of age, their dad should help them get into an arranged marriage with a girl from another traditional family, whose dad kept her off of social media so that she wouldn't become an Instagram whore with an inflated ego.

"Femoids say, 'If you just had a nice personality and didn't demand sex from girls, they would finally give you pussy.' No, that's just a convenient lie that lets them string men along so they can get what they want without giving up the pussy. It's basically fraud."

Nathan Larson explains what a "supreme gentleman" is

31 December 2017 — Catlett, Virginia — Neoreactionary libertarian congressional candidate Nathan Larson explained today what a "supreme gentleman" is.

"Let's break it up into its constituent parts," Larson suggested. "He is supreme meaning greater than all others, more powerful than all others. When girls refused to open their legs to Elliot Rodger, and men refused to allow him to rape those girls, he still demonstrated mastery over those girls' bodies by reducing them to mauled carcasses, and unleashing the destructive force of his knife, gun, and car on any man who got in the way. One who is supreme maintains his supremacy by not taking any shit from anyone, especially femoids, whose rightful place is beneath man in the social order; and feminists, whose rightful place is in the same mass grave as the commies and others who threaten to destroy society.

"He is gentle meaning he shows self-restraint, using no more force than necessary to accomplish his goals. Elliot gave women many chances to open their legs to him, and gave men many chances to allocate him a wife for his pleasure. He was patient and longsuffering, opting to sit quietly composing his thoughts for the benefit of future generations rather than acting rashly in the heat of the moment and throwing an unproductive tantrum as a woman might, hoping some man would take notice and try to appease. A strong man is calmly confident, and in all his photos, you can see Elliot's relaxed demeanor, even as thoughts of sexual frustration and consequent homicidal destruction were perhaps running through his mind.

"He is first and foremost and above all else a man. He has an intellect that can reason logically; unlike women's, his thoughts are orderly and focused, undisturbed by emotion unless he chooses to harness it for his purposes. Yet at the same time he sometimes allows his anger be unleashed at random intervals, to let people know that they can't play him for a cuck by predicting what will and won't provoke a response, and acting in just such a way as not to push him too far. He commands respect by being unpredictable, and few would have predicted that in our cucked-out society where so many men just accept their lot as eunuchs to serve the state, a man would have the balls to do what Elliot did.

"A man instinctively knows the role and purpose of his penis in the scheme of enforcing the social order of male dominance and female submission and in the regeneration, rejuvenation, and improvement of the human species through sexual reproduction between fit men and women. He makes the proper assessment of his worth and knows that he has a natural right to put his penis in women and get them pregnant; yet he acknowledges the restraints society puts upon him, and makes a decision according to his scale of values.

"In the case of Elliot, he sacrifices himself in a way that no woman ever would. We will never see a woman fight to make the world a better place for incels, even when all she would need to do to make that happen is open her legs. We will never see a woman risk jail or death to help bring about the restoration of a patriarchal society that will serve both men and women better than what we have now. Only men do that.

"With women, everything is about reputation and social acceptance; they prize that above all else. Men are capable of creating change in the world by disregarding what others think and acting based on their own assessments of what is right and necessary. Women are easily frightened to the point of being immobilized, able to do nothing but scream for help or look to a strong man for guidance; but strong men are capable of using reason to silence their fear and take decisive action.

"In all these ways, Elliot Rodger demonstrated himself to be a supreme gentleman."

Nathan Larson cautions, "The low birth rate means we're at a tipping point; degeneracy must end or we die out"

30 December 2017 — Catlett, Virginia — Neoreactionary libertarian congressional candidate Nathan Larson warned today about the likely consequences of feminist degeneracy, if it is allowed to go unchecked.

"I've been disgruntled with feminism for awhile now, but before, it just seemed to me that it was mostly an annoyance and an inconvenience, keeping men and women from reaching their full potential as lovers, companions, and parents with complementary roles, but not necessarily going so far as to be intolerable. As time went on, I did become more aware that feminism produces a lot of frustration and injustice by undermining and ripping apart the family unit and causing relations between the sexes to become utterly dysfunctional in many cases. Feminism replaces truths with lies and suppresses dissent. It blames men for all of women's problems without giving men the authority to prevent those problems to begin with or to enjoy the respect and sexual intimacy that should come with being women's problem-solvers. We are expected to be content with praise for being 'such a sweet friend' while also playing the role of scapegoat (due to our male privilege that allegedly comes automatically with having a penis) whenever life doesn't go their way.

"The male feminists have robbed us of the right to enjoy what every man yearns for, which is to have a young girl as his property, to lift the white veil covering the smiling face of a maiden and kiss her lips, to see her naked for the first time and, breaking the seal on her virgin pussy with the penetration of your hard penis, see the look in her eyes at that moment when she learns what it's like to feel a man entering her most intimate place to fill her up completely, pushing against her cervix with rapturous strokes, ejaculating inside her and impregnating her with that baby who completes her as a woman, causing her to fulfill her proper role that she was made for. Patriarchy gives her the ability to just be swept away with the current of a man's masculine energy, playing a supportive role in his life that doesn't demand anything more of her than what her femininity makes her the best suited for.

"But instead, we have this mess where both women and women are always anxious and frustrated, rather than soothed by the comforting complementarity of man and woman enjoying what each other have to offer, while maintaining a sense of mystery and wonder by occupying the separate realms of the masculine and feminine. The feminist social experiment has failed; it turns out, men and women are different in more ways than one having a penis and the other a vagina. The genitals turned out to be symbolic of a larger truth, in which the male penetrates and the woman receives, the very nature of how the two of them come together meaning that he is to be the one taking the lead while she obeys his wishes and receives her own reward and pleasure and the satisfaction of knowing she is a good wife who has earned the value her husband places upon her.

"Women were not meant to be strong and independent; they were meant to rely on their husbands and direct their feminine charm at pleasing him, looking to him as the one to fulfill all her needs. Young women are naturally cautious and easily frightened, and need the strength of a man. For them to go out into the world and try to make their way by doing what comes naturally to them as women, that is, use their charm to obtain men's favor and advance in the world, superficially taking on the appearance of male accomplishment but in reality falling into temptation to take the easy way of relying on men's desire for their pussies, turns her into a slut. It may seem exciting for a time, but she can't really be proud of her interactions with the Chads who defile her (making her undesirable to any good man who would otherwise want to commit to her) and the supplicating betas who disgust her even as she uses them for her own purposes. She would be happier relaxing at home with a baby sucking on her breast, being comforted by the familiarity and warmth of the hearth (in contrast to the freezing air conditioning of the office), and valued by a man who treats her as property to be cherished and nurtured, rather than as just a disposable fuck-toy to be used and then discarded.

"Now I realize, feminism has gone beyond creating misery, to become a threat to our very existence as a species.

"The trajectory of a typical white middle class girl's life is, she grows up in the suburbs, maybe gets banged out by Chad in high school, and definitely gets banged out by Chad in college. She probably takes six years to get a four-year degree, then goes to work as a barista or at an entry-level corporate job, probably something involving a lot of paper shuffling. Or maybe she decided to become an accountant, lawyer, psychologist, or whatever, and therefore went on to grad school.

"Either way, she's nowhere near settling down with beta boy till she's in her 30s. Or, if she is with beta boy, they're probably struggling to pay bills (including student loans) and nowhere near feeling ready to start having kids. It's just so easy to put that off till later.

"Bottom line is, she's probably only going to have one or two kids before her womb either gives out or the marriage falls apart (due to (1) her constant dissatisfaction that her husband isn't like the Chads she got accustomed to fucking and thinks she deserved to be able to lock down; and (2) her discontent that her husband seems like a loser compared to her, the accomplished professional. She yearns for a man who's higher-status than her, and falls into the temptation to flirt with her colleagues, even if all the workplace Chad sees her as is a rapidly depreciating whore good only for a few turns in the hay before moving on to the next Stacy.) Or maybe the couple just won't feel like they have the money to have more kids; after all, society taxes them to death and expects them to buy a 60" television and every other modern amenity to be fit parents.

"What about the typical working class girl? Probably she fornicated with Chad too, maybe even with Tyrone as well, and quite possibly got pregnant by them. Maybe she'll just keep fucking different men and having kids till she has about four of them, but what also often happens is that she'll instead have one kid, and then say, "I'm tired of putting up with men's shit; I'm done" and stop there. These girls are as man-hating as the feminists sometimes, talking about how men are undependable assholes, although of course they rejected the men who weren't that way.

"Often in marriage, the man is the driving force wanting to have more kids. He enjoys filling his wife's belly with more babies, and taking pride in walking down the street with her, so that all can see his handiwork and his ownership of her. He enjoys how in the throes of childbirth she cries out in a way that's so reminiscent of her moans and sighs in the bedroom when he was impregnating her to begin with. He enjoys seeing the signs of the physical differences between man and woman that become so much more evident in her role as mother.

"She may say, 'It's enough, honey, no more kids,' but he just wants to keep getting her pregnant with baby after baby after baby. And you know what the reason is for why nature made her more reluctant to keep bearing more children, while giving him the drive to keep impregnating her? So that it would make him want to hold her down and rape her and forcibly knock her up. This would remind her of her place and make him feel powerful as a man, reinforcing their complementary roles in a very memorable way that impresses itself upon their consciousnesses. Marital rape is a very fundamental and important part of the natural order.

"But feminism banned all that, influencing men to instead think they should ask permission for everything rather than just taking what's theirs. Women are repelled by this, and a vicious cycle starts in which she isn't aroused, and therefore doesn't open her legs to him, and then he becomes more and more desperate and supplicatory for her pussy, which turns her off even more till the bedroom is completely dead.

"The end result is, the white birth rate falls below 2.1, the replacement rate -- the level that would be required to keep the white race's numbers from declining over time due to attrition. When the white race dies out, civilization will collapse too. Just look at every other place, like Rhodesia, that aren't led by whites or Asians. Even places like Japan and South Korea base their economies on technology developed by whites.

"So the concerns we can raise at this point have gone beyond just saying, "I wanted pussy and didn't get it!" (or, in the case of the beta cucks, "I wanted my wife to be faithful and loyal, but she left me and took the kids!")

"These are legitimate grievances, but now we have actual demographic statistics with which to show that the situation is unsustainable. Every white incel who LDARs rather than having the opportunity to be the husband who sustains a family is removed from a role in which he could have participated in white babymaking and the support and parenting of quality children.

"This is now an existential struggle. Even France, which tries to offset the impact of feminism on the birth rate by enacting "pro-natalist" laws intended to encourage childbearing, has a fertility rate of only 2.01 births per woman. France! The country that is supposedly all about romance, isn't producing enough babies to sustain their white population.

"And no, immigration from non-white countries isn't going to fix the problem. The immigrants can pick fruit and construct homes and trim hedges, but if that were enough to build an advanced civilization, Mexico would be a first-world country.

"The white nationalists focus on how it's degenerate for Stacy to open her legs for Tyrone to shove his BBC up her snatch. I would also say, it's degenerate even for Chad to take a white girl's virginity and then not make at least three babies with her and support the family. Darkwing Cuck too, if he's the one who ends up ultimately impregnating her instead of Chad, should be knocking her up with at least three babies. Failure to do this is to participate in the extinction of the white race (and in the case of the beta cuck, probably his bloodline will be one of the first to go, because he's not even impregnating multiple women the way Chad might be).

"So, what to do about this? White fathers need to do a better job making sure their daughters are put on the right track to help perpetuate the family line. That means marrying her off as a virgin at the youngest age possible to a man with the means to support a family, who has the intention of knocking her up as soon as possible with at least three kids. If her husband doesn't knock her up with three kids, after promising that he would, then I think perhaps her father should have the right to have another male relative of the husband substitute in the role of doing that. Maybe he could tell the husband's brother, you're welcome to go in her pussy and get her pregnant, because your brother isn't doing his job. This would be similar to Levirate marriage, and it would diminish the extent to which the husband is getting cucked because it would still be his family's genes producing those kids.

"If there's a young virgin who has just come of age and an incel says, "Yes, I'll knock up your daughter with seven kids," that means he should have preference as being the one chosen to be her husband, all else equal. That might put him ahead of the man who was only wanting to have three kids with her, even if that man was more attractive. Quality is important, but so is quantity. Let's suppose some other man was twice as attractive. 7 times 1 is still greater than 3 times 2.

"What can white incels do? Maybe start approaching white nationalist fathers who have nubile daughters, and offer your services in helping perpetuate the family line. If you're Mormon or belong to some other religion that favors large families, that probably gives you some extra credibility as someone who will probably follow through on his word to get her pregnant with lots of kids. Maybe converting to Mormonism and approaching Mormon dads is another possibility.

"Whatever religion out there favors large families and gives the father the right to choose his daughter's husband is probably the one you want to go with. Some of the more fundamentalist patriarchal religions are probably cult-like, and keep to themselves so that the state doesn't have so many opportunities to interfere, and so that their women are shielded somewhat from the influences of a degenerate culture. It's starting to become rare to find, but if you can find it, and make use of it to continue the race, then you've performed a valuable service to mankind.

"I got stuck in the neet life, unfortunately, so I can't really participate directly at this time in trying every idea I put forth above, but we know that there are men who have done so, and that they have the little kids running around to prove it."

Nathan Larson proposes that incels should not have to pay taxes for schools, welfare payments to single moms, etc.

30 December 2017 — Catlett, Virginia — Neoreactionary libertarian congressional candidate Nathan Larson proposed today, "If you're an incel, you should be exempted from having to pay taxes to support the school system, the welfare payments to single moms, etc. You didn't get to enjoy thrusting into those women's tight, young pussies, and hold her hand in the hospital while your babies were coming out of her beautiful snatch, so why should you have to pay for Chad and Darkwing Cuck's offspring?

"If you paid sales taxes or property taxes or income taxes into the system, you should get a refund for everything that was related to feeding, housing, educating, etc. those kids. This will shift any tax burden for those services over to the fathers of those children.

"One might argue, "These men are already getting screwed over, by having to pay child support, etc. A lot of times their wife left them and now they're having to pay out money without even getting any pussy from her or getting to see their kids."

"This is true; therefore I propose that we get rid of child support payments altogether and have a more efficient system in which a man who takes a girl's virginity then owns her for the rest of her life and they can from that point live together under the same roof (since she won't be allowed to leave), which will be much cheaper than maintaining two separate homes. He will be allowed to rape her whenever he wants, and therefore will be getting compensated with pussy for having to support the family.

"In most cases, she won't need to get welfare, because she'll be living with him; or if they are going through hard times and getting any kind of assistance, it's going to cost much less than it would've if they lived separately. It'll also be easier for him to afford to pay for his kids' schooling and whatnot (maybe he can even have his wife homeschool them while he works), plus he can stay motivated better to work hard and advance in his career by getting pussy when he comes home and getting to spend time with his kids. He won't be tempted to have an attitude of, "Fuck it, I'm gonna LDAR rather than pay her a dime" like he might've if they were separated and he had to pay child support.

"When incels are treated more fairly by the tax system, then they too won't feel such an urge to LDAR in frustration and anger at the injustice of it all. As it is now, a self-respecting incel almost has to LDAR due to a recognition that he's being cucked. The very definition of being cucked is having to open your wallet to help a woman enjoy a more comfortable life getting banged out by another man and bearing his children. When men aren't forced to play the cuck like that, then women have more incentive to consider whether they should get him to open his wallet by other means, such as spreading her legs for him and letting him get her pregnant, even if it means she can't have Chad.

"Under a reformed tax code, you won't have to open your wallet for her until you make her your property, and you'll be entitled to all the benefits of enjoying her pussy whenever you want till death do you part. And if Chad does fuck her, then Chad will be hanged for adultery and you'll have the option of having her choked out to death too, since she will have demonstrated that apparently she likes getting choked, at least when it's Chad doing it."

Nathan Larson publishes manifesto concerning rape

29 December 2017 — Catlett, Virginia — Neoreactionary libertarian congressional candidate Nathan Larson announced today the release of a comprehensive manifesto concerning rape, covering such topics as acquaintance rape, father-daughter incest, kidnapped rape-slaves, anal rape, and uxoricide for willful failure to maintain adequate female hair length.

Nathan Larson wonders aloud why Donald Trump keeps kissing the Jews' butts

28 December 2017 — Catlett, Virginia — Neoreactionary libertarian congressional candidate Nathan Larson today wondered aloud why Donald Trump keeps kissing the Jews' butts.

"What's the point? They're not going to vote for him anyway," Larson remarked. "After he bent over backwards to endorse their Holocaust narrative and show support for Israel, they rejected his stance on the violence in Charlottesville. Trump would normally kick to the curb people who showed disloyalty, but he's opted to keep Jews in his inner circle.

"Trump didn't feel the need to kiss the blacks' butts. Look at how he questioned Barack's birth certificate and called for stop-and-frisk policing. He hasn't really courted the black vote too much, aside from pointing out the Democrats' hypocrisy in how they treat the black population after claiming to be their champions.

"No matter what Trump say or does, the Jews will use their media outlets, like the New York Times, to portray him and his actions and comments in a bad light so as to politically defeat him as much as possible. That being the case, why shouldn't he instead court support from the whites? He needs to take heed of the message from 'the only one who cherished ya, it's white America'.

"Trump might as well put away his yarmulke and pick up a copy of Mein Kampf and start reading. He has a lot of catching up to do.

"One might argue, if Trump is constantly being attacked in the Jew-controlled media, maybe he's doing a few things right. As Hitler wrote, 'If a comrade of ours opens a Jewish newspaper in the morning and does not find himself vilified there, then he has spent yesterday to no account. For if he had achieved something he would be persecuted, slandered, derided and abused. Those who effectively combat this mortal enemy of our people, who is at the same time the enemy of all Aryan peoples and all culture, can only expect to arouse opposition on the part of this race and become the object of its slanderous attacks.'

"Nonetheless, I tend to agree with the Noose article 'Trumpcucks' that for Jews, 'the objective is for him to act as a relief valve and to keep all related discourse within a semitically-correct, patriotard frame, preventing it from reaching a point of explicit racial consciousness and organization'. For the foreseeable future, people who want to raise the Jewish Question will likely need to run for office themselves rather than looking to Trump for leadership on that issue."

Nathan Larson cautions libertarians that their behavior and policy stances make it hard for people to take the libertarian movement seriously

28 December 2017 — Catlett, Virginia — Neoreactionary libertarian congressional candidate Nathan Larson today cautioned libertarians that their behavior and policy stances make it hard for people to take the libertarian movement seriously.

"When you go around saying that threatening the President is a violation of the nonaggression principle, you lose quite a bit of credibility with the more hardcore, ideologically consistent libertarians," Larson noted. "My campaign, in contrast, is very serious business, as my more avid readers are by now well-aware from seeing how I have put together a platform that will appeal to a number of disenfranchised groups currently being ignored, dismissed, or even denounced by libertarians.

"Your vision has become too uninspiring and bland for anyone to get excited about. You're trying to get 4 percent of the vote in the present when you should be focused on winning the hearts and minds of the young people who represent the future.

"More and more normies are waking up, comrades. You can't rely on them to remain bluepilled forever. Eventually, their nonstop beta cuck cope will lose its effectiveness as society becomes more dysfunctional and the truth becomes harder to ignore."

Nathan Larson points out similarities between roasties and Mexican restaurants that charge $3.50 for chips and salsa

28 December 2017 — Catlett, Virginia — Neoreactionary libertarian congressional candidate Nathan Larson today drew a comparison between roasties and Mexican restaurants that charge $3.50 for chips and salsa.

"It used to be, you could go into any Mexican restaurant and get free chips and salsa," Larson noted. "It was an expected amenity that while waiting for your meal, you could get that free appetizer. It was almost considered a birthright. It was their way of showing hospitality and appreciation, or even love, if you will.

"But now, Mexican restaurants want to charge $3.50, which they try to justify by saying, e.g., they're 'committed to making a homemade salsa with more high-end, costly ingredients such as jalapeno and habanero peppers, tomatillos, cilantro, garlic and onion.' If it were guacamole, I might understand, but restaurants are already charging us out the wazoo with their inflated prices for drinks and whatnot, and expecting us to pay a 15-20 percent tip as well because they don't feel like paying the waitress minimum wage, so why am I going to on top of that pay for a handful of chips and some watery liquid to dip them in?

"This is kind of like modern marriage. It used to be an expected amenity that your wife would be a teenage virgin, and that she would be faithful and loyal to you. I mean, you are, after all, having to pay to support her and any offspring you might have, plus you're having to commit to be monogynous with her.

"But no, they're so stingy, they want to take away that amenity, so they can give it to Chad. You know what? I can take my business somewhere else too. Just like I go next door from the Mexican place to the Italian restaurant that offers free bread, I'm switching my business from these roasties to my right hand. Chad has never ejaculated in my right hand, which is more than I can say about these roasties.

"Donald Trump said, 'When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists.'

"Worst of all, though, they're sending us some restaurateurs who are real ripoff artists. The average American white family won't be victimized by MS-13 but probably will at some point end up shelling out $3.50 plus sales tax and tip for appetizers that should've been free. This is an outrage and I for one will not stand for it."

Nathan Larson proposes designating Virginia as location for social experiment to serve as the basis for longitudinal studies on the effects of legalized adult-child sex

26 December 2017 — Catlett, Virginia — Neoreactionary libertarian congressional candidate Nathan Larson proposed designating Virginia as location for a social experiment to serve as the basis for longitudinal studies on the effects of legalized adult-child sex.

"People don't want to get into arguments with pedophiles because they figure, 'These guys aren't interested in the truth; they just want to justify their behavior,'" Larson noted. "I think pedophiles probably do start with the presumption that sex with kids is okay. All else equal, doesn't it make sense to assume that your desires are healthy? E.g., if you don't feel like fucking a dog, or if you're not attracted to a 400-pound landwhale with a Skrillex haircut, don't you usually figure, 'Natural selection must have influenced me to not want to put my dick in this, because it's not a good use of my reproductive resources'?

"On the other hand, if you're attracted to, say, a beautiful and intelligent Asian girl, then you might figure, 'Nature must not have selected against this attraction, so maybe there's nothing wrong with acting on it.'

"Whenever we see any kind of 'deviancy' practiced (or even desired) by a large percentage of white men, we have to question how deviant it really is. This isn't like intellectual deviancy, where there might be Jews actively working to deceive whites. Kids are supposedly not trying to seduce adults, although they probably act cute sometimes on purpose to win their favor. So if adults are sexually attracted to them, presumably it was because that desire was innate.

"Why didn't evolutionary pressures select more strongly against pedophilia? One has to wonder. The same goes for homosexuality and other "deviancies" that a lot of men will practice at least some of the time.

"When you think about it, a lot of these deviances are not that much different than jacking off. Assuming a sheep has tested negative for sexually transmitted diseases, what difference does it make whether you have sex with sheep or jack off into the shower drain?

"Same deal with some of the non-white races. If you're conquering a foreign land, and there are, say, Native American squaw girls around, how is it worse to put your dick in them than to jack off, unless you're worried about there being some retribution from the natives? But in that case, you must not have conquered them very thoroughly, if they're able to fight back like that. Anyway, women are supposed to be spoils of war; there should be some advantage like that to offset the fact that you're risking your life for your country. Or, if some of the foreign women are going to be taken as slaves and distributed to the men back home (maybe after the soldiers get first pick), then that gives them an incentive to support the war effort.

"The way I look at it is, it's kind of like being out of work. If you're out of work, you can either sit around watching TV or doing something that's like work, even if you don't get paid for it. You can write wiki articles, or run for office, or do any number of other activities that require effort and maybe allow you to sharpen your skills, become more knowledgeable, form connections with other people, make a contribution to the world, etc. Maybe at some point, you'll be rewarded for that in some way you can't fully anticipate now.

"Men have at various times been without the companionship of women and needed to resort to animals, or other men, or children, etc. How is that any worse than the shower drain? Through touch, people (and animals) form emotional bonds by which they comfort one another. Maybe some of that pays off in the future (since we live and work with animals, and other men, and children, the latter of which eventually grows up) even though it would've been preferable to have had sex with a woman.

"Women have evolved to be able to handle being war brides. If their country gets conquered and they get raped by a strong man and turned into his sex slave, they adapt and find a way to be happy with the new situation. Animals, too, have been bred to enjoy the companionship of humans and to find pleasure in serving men. Children, too, can develop bonds with adults, to the point that they miss them when they're taken away from them.

"Why would it be that evolution would select in favor of men having pedophilic desires, but not select in favor of children adapting to adult-child sexual relationships? One might argue, 'Maybe it's like how weak men desire to rape women but women don't want to be raped by weak men.' That's just it, though -- as long as you don't turn out to be weak, and thereby a bad investment of reproductive resources, there's usually no problem.

"Anyway, I think that a typical pedophile, if he were 100 percent confident that sex with kids is indeed harmful to kids, probably wouldn't want to do it. He would say, 'It sure does suck that I have this desire I can't act upon, but my conscience requires that I abstain.'

"Therefore, I propose a social experiment and longitudinal study, where one state of the union, such as Virginia, be set aside as a social experiment for testing what happens when adult-child sex is allowed.

"How would that work? Legalize child marriage (with paternal consent) for girls, and let boys do what they want.

"I predict at least two favorable outcomes of this experiment. First, men will no longer need to worry about being regarded with suspicion as possible pedophiles if they want to hang around young boys, e.g. in a teaching setting. If man-boy sex isn't a big deal, then it won't matter whether a man is or isn't a pedophile, or whether he has sexual intentions with regard to someone else's son, assuming the culture changes along with the law. This is going to make it a lot easier for boys to establish friendships and receive mentorship from the older generation of men.

"Another effect I would predict is that we won't see men who want teenage girls vilified as pedophiles anymore. Part of the problem with laws and cultural stigma against sex with prepubescent girls is that those end up being a slippery slope leading to a prohibition against sex with teenage girls too. We can finally stop worrying about arbitrary age limits and just treat girls as girls, rather than saying there's some difference between girls and women. They're mostly all the same anyway; the idea that older women are better because they're more 'mature' is a myth propagated mostly by, guess who, older women.

"Most adult-child sex happens within the family anyway, so there's not even point to all this paranoia about 'stranger danger'. You'll never be able to stamp out adult-child sex without putting telescreens in everyone's home to see what they do with their kids. Only a few people, such as myself, are going to alert everyone to their intentions before actually trying to realize their fantasies. Most of the rest will tend to get away with it.

"Stop stalling and take the lolipill, faggots."

Nathan Larson points out the weakness of anti-pedophiles' arguments

26 December 2017 — Catlett, Virginia — Neoreactionary libertarian congressional candidate Nathan Larson noted today that if challenged, anti-pedophiles' arguments will collapse like a house of cards buffeted by a light breeze.

"The way we know this is that they won't even present their arguments. If you go to, say, Return of Kings, you'll never see an article listing '7 Reasons Men Shouldn't Have sex With Little Kids' or anything like that. They would have an article about why sluttiness or homosexuality or pornography are bad, but there will never be an article about why sex with kids is bad. It's supposedly assumed that it's self-evident, obvious, agreed-upon, common-sense, etc. (In reality, whenever a claim, like the Declaration of Independence's assertion that all men are created equal, is set forth as 'self-evident', that usually means it's dubious and the people presenting it are trying to preemptively close off debate by saying they're not interested in discussing it. The implication is that they've already decided that anyone who disagrees with them is a fool or a liar who must be dealt with through force rather than persuasion.)

"If they did have an article like that, then people might actually point out in the comments where the arguments are flawed. It would serve as an invitation for a debate, and they don't want that.

"The burden of proof is always on the pedophile to prove his case. People will ask him, 'Where's your proof that sex with kids is harmless?' Some have pointed out, it's similar to when atheists argue with theists; the theists will say, 'Prove that there's no god. Explain how something came from nothing.' The theists, on the other hand, can just say, 'What do you mean, prove God exists? The proof is all around you! What do you mean, explain where God came from? He always existed.' Apparently gods, but not matter and energy, are capable of having no beginning or end.

"That's how I know I'm not dealing with intellectually honest people, though -- when they won't have even one article making their case on that issue, out of the many hundreds of articles they've posted. If someone were to submit an article like that, it wouldn't be published.

"But wait, aren't they concerned about pedophilia? Don't they want to convert pedophiles to their point of view through logical argumentation?

"Nope. They just want to virtue signal.

"It also goes to show, they don't have faith in the power of argumentation to lead people to the truth. So, if they don't believe in using argumentation in that arena, why apply it to other arenas?

"It's kind of like how they would never have an article, '7 Reasons Men Shouldn't Practice Incest' or '7 Reasons Men Shouldn't Practice Bestiality' even though these too are pretty common practices which just haven't hit the media's radar screen for whatever reason. RoK writers wouldn't know how to argue their case on such matters because it's unheard of for anyone to call on them to do so, or present to them a dissident argument.

"If challenged, all they would be able to say is, 'Th-that's degenerate!' Or maybe they would have one argument, and that's it. E.g., 'But if you engage in incest, then your kids might end up looking like Charles II of Spain.'

"By that logic, we shouldn't let older women have kids either, because they have a statistically higher chance of having offspring with birth defects. No one's going to suggest banning that, though, because it would be illiberal to restrict people's reproductive rights like that based only on a possibility rather than certainty of a defect. Hmm..."

Nathan Larson proposes abolishing the drinking age

26 December 2017 — Catlett, Virginia — Neoreactionary libertarian congressional candidate Nathan Larson proposed today that the drinking age, currently set at 21, be abolished.

"In a libertarian society, it will be legal to marry very young girls," Larson noted. "Girls generally like to get drunk and have sex. It should be legal to take your wife out for a romantic evening, and order a couple bottles of wine with her at a nice restaurant, and then take her into the bathroom to give her a good hard fuck, even especially if she's not 21 yet.

"Unlike wine, girls don't age well. It's important to be able to enjoy them while they're still in their youthful prime, so you can have those memories to help get you through all the years when they're not looking as good anymore and their vaginas aren't as tight as they used to be.

"While I'm on the subject, I would like to remind the public that any man who commits himself to a lifelong monogynous relationship with a girl without getting in return the opportunity to take her virginity and enjoy her pussy while she's still in her teens, is a chump and probably a cuck too. He will never get to enjoy the best that she had to offer. A man would be better off getting with a teenage girl who's not all that pretty, than a 30-something cheerleader-turned-wall-victim who devoted her years of prime nubility to Chad. Let us remember the immortal words of Victor Pride:

A woman's body does not age well. You want the most amount of years with your wife having a tight, young, firm body. After 30 it goes downhill fast. At around the age of 31 a woman's beauty really declines fast.

It's a tradeoff, she gives you her good years and you put up with her in her bad years. Never take a woman already in her bad years.

A young body is especially important for bearing children. Old women cannot have and don't have healthy children. At 30 years of age a woman is already 15 years past her child-bearing prime.

But I like talking to smart women. 20 year olds are stupid.

Her IQ won't grow much with age. A dumb 20 year old is a dumb 30 year old. The difference is that the 30 year old dumb woman is a lot more bitter and has a whole lot less to offer.

"If roasties get toasty, just tell them, 'One-cock rule, one-cock rule, I ain't no fool, I ain't no tool. About another cock ya make me think, I'm gone to the beach. Let the betas buy yas yer next drink.'"

Nathan Larson calls for assembling a grand coalition of incels, pedophiles, patriarchists, neoreactionary libertarians, and National Socialists to defeat the feminists, progressives, cuckservatives, statists, and Jews

26 December 2017 — Catlett, Virginia — Neoreactionary libertarian congressional candidate Nathan Larson called today for a grand coalition of incels, pedophiles, patriarchists, neoreactionary libertarians, and National Socialists to defeat the feminists, progressives, cuckservatives, statists, and Jews.

"No longer should we let our differences divide us," Larson noted, "but rather, we should go forth and seize what's ours. What is needed are strong leaders to unite all the disenfranchised groups in society, much like what Joseph Smith sought to do in 1844. At this point, there are a great many groups chafing under the rule of the Ctrl-Left, and it appears that they increasingly have little to lose and are a cauldron waiting to bubble over into action. The Free Northerner article 'Purging Roosh' notes:

PUA’s aren’t the problem, they are a symptom. I again reject the war people are trying to brew between the alt-right and PUA’s. In any decent society, they’d be run out of town with a bull-whip, but we don’t live in a decent society and our allies are few. The PUA’s are useful tools for reaching disaffected young men and inducting them into the alt-right. There has probably been no greater recruitment for the alt-right than then the red pill.

Strategically, we should just leave him and the other PUA’s alone and let them do their thing. The right people will filter through them into us. The rest can keep spreading herpes to club sluts until the restoration, after which we can suppress them like other degenerates. Until then, they’re too useful to go attacking for no good reason.

"This seems like a reasonable approach. Hitler, too, in Mein Kampf, did not obsess over degeneracy as much as modern NatSocs do. He didn't call for a war on drugs, for instance, or fret about homosexuals. On the contrary, he gave Ernst Röhm a high position and mostly ignored Röhm's having sex with young boys, till the Night of the Long Knives, when Röhm was liquidated so as to neutralize the SA, which was essentially a goon squad that had finished serving its purpose and was threatening to become a liability. As Sick Rose notes, the Nazis didn't have a major problem with masculine pederasty; their concern was more with rooting out effeminate faggotry.

"Likewise, if older men want to have sex with young girls, that's not really a big deal, as long as it's in the context of starting a family that will eventually produce children. Child marriage is not really a degenerate practice; in fact, Hitler was a strong proponent of early marriage, although I'm not sure he ever specified exactly how early.

"Some NatSocs seem to think that pedophilia is being pushed by the Jews as a way of corrupting children and thereby undermining western society. But there are both regenerate and degenerate forms of pedophilia. It's like how there are regenerate forms of using cannabis (e.g. for medicinal purposes, or as an alternative to harder drugs) and degenerate forms (e.g. leaving cannabis gummi bears where a three-year-old can eat the whole bag). NatSoc needs to become sophisticated enough to understand the difference between use and misuse.

"Pedophiles are present in every group, typically covertly, because they're expelled from almost everywhere. That includes NatSocs; even though overt pedophiles typically aren't welcome on NatSoc servers, I've run into NatSocs on pedophile boards before. They trade child porn like everyone else, in between arguing for racialism and whatnot. Their point of view tends to be that if white men can dominate women and non-whites, why shouldn't they extend their dominion to include children as well? And I agree with them.

"The nature of intersectionality is that pretty much any group can find a way to ally with any other group and smooth over the conflicts in their ideologies. How else could feminists ally with, say, the cuckservatives to fight against pornography? Incels want access to pussy; pedophiles want access to children; patriarchists want stable families; neoreactionary libertarians want capitalism; and National Socialists want to kill the Jews. I'm sure there's some way to accomplish all of these goals simultaneously. For example, when the Jewish kids are sent to the concentration camps, rather than sending them straight into the ovens, maybe the Nazi pedophiles could be allowed to have their way with them first.

Saul Alinsky notes in Rules for Radicals:

The setting for the drama of change has never varied. Mankind has been and is divided into three parts: the Haves, the Have-Nots, and the Have-a-Little, Want Mores. . . . .

The Haves want to keep; the Have-Nots want to get. Thermopolitically they are a mass of cold ashes of resignation and fatalism, but inside there are glowing embers of hope which can be fanned by the building of means of obtaining power. Once the fever begins the flame will follow. They have nowhere to go but up. . . . .

Between the Haves and Have-Nots are the Have-a-Little, Want Mores—the middle class. Torn between upholding the status quo to protect the little they have, yet wanting change so they can get more, they become split personalities. They could be described as social, economic, and political schizoids. Generally, they seek the safe way, where they can profit by change and yet not risk losing the little they have. They insist on a minimum of three aces before playing a hand in the poker game of revolution. Thermopolitically they are tepid and rooted in inertia. Today in Western society and particularly in the United States they comprise the majority of our population.

Yet in the conflicting interests and contradictions within the Have-a-Little, Want Mores is the genesis of creativity. Out of this class have come, with few exceptions, the great world leaders of change of the past centuries: Moses, Paul of Tarsus, Martin Luther, Robespierre, Georges Danton, Samuel Adams, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, Napoleon Bonaparte, Giuseppe Garibaldi, Nikolai Lenin, Mahatma Gandhi, Fidel Castro, Mao Tse-tung, and others.

Just as the clash of interests within the Have-a-Little, Want Mores has bred so many of the great leaders it has also spawned a particular breed stalemated by cross interests into inaction. These Do-Nothings profess a commitment to social change for ideals of justice, equality, and opportunity, and then abstain from and discourage all effective action for change. They are known by their brand, "I agree with your ends but not your means." They function as blankets whenever possible smothering sparks of dissension that promise to flare up into the fire of action. These Do-Nothings appear publicly as good men, humanitarian, concerned with justice and dignity. In practice they are invidious. They are the ones Edmund Burke referred to when he said, acidly: "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

"Strategically, an alliance of incels, pedophiles, patriarchists, neoreactionary libertarians, and National Socialists makes sense because it represents a union of the have-nots with the have-a-little-want-mores. The incels and pedophiles, as a sexually disenfranchised group, fall into the former class, while the neoreactionary libertarians and National Socialists fall into the latter. Modern NatSocs, most of them bourgeois, pat themselves on the back for biding their time rather than rushing into action, yet as Hitler noted, the bourgeoisie's 'lamentably supine' attitude can be a problem when action is needed.

"NatSocs should probably adopt a more pragmatic approach to morality, similar to Hitler's. There might be some room to relax moral standards on, say, issues like miscegenation, if ways can be found to make it eugenic rather than dysgenic.

"Hitler talks about the importance of having a pure white race because whites are so much more heroic than other races, e.g. in how they're willing to risk their lives on the front lines for their country. What's the point of risking your life on the front lines, though, unless you potentially get some foreign pussy out of the deal? A lot of times when soldiers go to war, their wife is getting banged out by Jody, so there needs to be some compensation for his getting cucked.

"If white women are like children, then non-white women are like animals. What's the big deal about breeding more animals? The only difference is that, in the case of miscegenation, you're using your own sperm to do it.

"In the southern states, black girls were kept around as fucktoys for whites even after slavery was abolished. That was one of the reasons why the south wanted to keep the age of consent low; they figured those girls were going to be banging Chad Tyrone anyway, so they might as well let the white boys get a piece. (This was before Romeo-and-Juliet laws created close-in-age exceptions to the age of consent.) It's not a big deal as long as there's a one-drop rule that says the mongrels don't get treated as whites.

"The main reason for not wifing up a non-white girl is the same as the reason for not wifing up a prostitute, which is, in a monogamous society, she then occupies a slot that could've gone to a better woman. But in a polygynous society, there are infinite slots.

"Hitler's support for monogamy mirrored the views of many leading eugenicists, including Ploetz and Gruber. Like them, his support for monogamy was based entirely on biological considerations. Interestingly, however, a few eugenicists in the the early twentieth century dissented, proposing that polygyny would better advance human evolution. The philosopher Christian von Ehrenfels and the chemist and publicist Willibald Hentschel were the most prominent advocates of replacing monogamy with polygyny."

Nathan Larson proposes matching up incels with feminist girls

26 December 2017 — Catlett, Virginia — Neoreactionary libertarian congressional candidate Nathan Larson proposed today matching up incels with feminist girls.

"There are a lot of butt-ugly dyke feminists out there who would be a good looksmatch for incels," Larson noted. "Why, then, has this match not occurred?

"These girls were so repulsive that even their fathers were too aghast at their own creation to give them the love they needed. These girls therefore became bitter at the whole world and decided to put on pounds just as a way of saying, 'Oh, you think I'm ugly now? Does my hideous face offend you and make you want to turn away? Well wait till you see how ugly I can make my body to match. I will exact retribution upon this cruel world by turning myself into the most grotesque creature imaginable, with blobs of fat rolling everywhere, so that everyone will be subjected to having to look at that.' They then dyed their hair blue to attract even more attention.

"But what they found was that men simply ignored or laughed at them, for the most part. So they had to match their ugly faces and bodies with an even uglier personality. While incels will straight-up admit, 'We're ugly,' feminist girls will say, 'Every body is beautiful!' even though the whole point of gaining all that weight was to be LESS beautiful as a way of spiting men.

"They also will say that men who don't like them just can't handle a 'strong, independent' woman. What does it mean to 'handle' her, though? It doesn't mean to put up with her disrespectful behavior; if you do that, she'll punish you by treating you worse, because deep down, her self-esteem is so crushed by her dysfunctional relationship with her dad that she doesn't believe she deserves to be treated well.

"No, she needs the kind of reassurance that only rape can provide, because rape signifies a strong man's viewing a girl as being worth going to all the trouble to overcome her resistance. She needs to be locked up in a basement and deprived of all food until her body slims down and she looks like Fat Bastard after he went on the Subway diet. When she finally has a man taking care of her and forcing discipline upon her to improve her, she will begin to blossom under that nurturance. The day of her kidnapping, when she is violated in all three orifi, and also titty-fucked between her ample bosoms and belly-button-fucked between her seemingly endless rolls of fat that are like the singularity of a black hole going down forever, she will finally know what it is like to be ravaged by a real man. It will be healing to her.

"The harder you spank her, the more brutally you backhand her to the floor when she gets out of line, the more savagely you violate her when it is your whim to have your way with her, and the more viciously you grab her by the throat and choke her to the point she starts to black out just as she's climaxing, the more she will feel loved, because to girls whose homeliness has made them invisible to men all their lives, any sort of passionate attention is a welcome change of pace. They know that love and hate are two sides of the same coin, and that either is preferable to indifference. When she feels the pain you inflict on her as you subdue her struggling body with masculine strength, pinning her arms down and forcing yourself between her legs into her most intimate place, for once in her life she will feel alive and wanted.

"Probably only the harshest and most degrading treatment, from the most physically repulsive incel, will turn her on, because it's all she believes she deserves. You need to torture her like she's in Room 101 of the Ministry of Love until you break her to the point of regression to a childlike state in which she finally learns to address you with the term of proper respect for her patriarch, answering, 'Yes, daddy,' 'No, daddy,' or in the throes of rape, 'DADDY, STOP! OW--' as you slap her across the face for her insolent outburst and pull her hair at the moment her body spasmodically tightens around yours as she's overcome by the rippling waves of orgasm that leave her speechless.

"You're going to be the father she never had, one who sets boundaries to bring order to her life but also gives her an unpredictable roller-coaster in which escalating pattern of violence alternates with sweetness, kindness, and romance at random intervals. Whenever she starts to be getting a little too comfortable and feels like maybe she's the one with the upper hand in the relationship, you will throw her off balance by flipping out for no apparent reason, making some paranoid accusation like, 'You've been thinking about having sex with other men, haven't you! You filthy SLUT!' and taking out all your aggressions on her in a violent rage, pummeling her with a relentless barrage of punches that leave her moaning, crying, and whimpering in pain, as she lies in a fetal position on the floor, clutching her arms to her body as you start kicking her for good measure.

"Later, you will tenderly hold ice packs to her bruises and give her flowers and handwritten love notes and maybe even take her to a nice restaurant (if you feel like the Stockholm syndrome has set in to the point she won't try to make a break for it; just to be safe, you might want to make her wear a tickle belt that you can activate if she tries to run away or scream for help). Maybe have her wear high heels and a sexy black dress that's skimpy enough to reveal all the black and blue marks your fists left, so you can show off to the world that you're the kind of strong, dominant man who doesn't takes any shit from women. (People will know there's no way she could have possibly tripped over her own feet by accident and sustained that many bruises all over her body, even if she fell down three flights of stairs.)

"Other women will stare at you with a look that says, 'Who is that man??' as you stroll by with a roguish smirk on your face, winking rakishly at the youngest and prettiest of the girls, who then shyly averts her eyes, blushing intensely. The way your SJW-turned-sex-slave gingerly sits down at the booth and winces as she leans back will let everyone know that you're not the kind of man to be trifled with, because when you get mad, you don't fuck around. All around you, pretty girls' pussies will spontaneously moisten at the sight of a man who shows all signs of being such a capable protector, provider, and lover.

"Yes, my friend, you should shine your shoes, put on a nice tailored suit (with a pocket square), and take your swollen-lipped, formerly-feminist concubine to some classy and elegant establishment where, in the flickering candlelight, you can peruse the wine list before ordering a 1996 Moet Chandon Dom Perignon Rose and perhaps a fine Segura Viudas Reserva Heredad Brut. After getting her tipsy enough to anesthetize somewhat the lingering tenderness and soreness from your domestic assault, you can start driving her home, and then impulsively pull over to the side of the road for passionate make-up sex in a wooded area where passers-by might stumble upon you at any moment. In this way, she can enjoy that exciting cycle of abuse that women crave so much. (Why do you think women are attracted to those men in the first place, and keep going back to them? They say they want to change him, but if he ever did change, they'd get bored and leave him for a more abusive man.)

"The feminist girl's screeches of '#YesAllWomen' are like the schoolyard bully slapping you across the head and throwing spitballs at you. It's an invitation to a fight; he WANTS you to try to beat him down. Then after that, maybe you can be best friends, because you will have earned his respect.

"People say, 'Just ignore the bully.' But the bully doesn't want to be ignored. That's why he's so persistent. He wants you to beat his ass. He's such a loser that the only way he can get attention is by provoking people. His self-esteem is also so low that he doesn't want to just approach people to have a normal conversation; he has to act like a dick instead, to try to get negative attention, because he thinks it's all he deserves, probably due to his shitty upbringing. This is similar to how feminist girls don't feel like they can just approach men in a normal way and flirt with them; they have to resort to all this passive-aggressive behavior to try to annoy men to the point that they finally rape them just to get them to stop being a pest.

"Then again, some individuals are just psychopaths who only understand and respect force, rather than more civilized ways of interaction. Either way, they need to be beaten down HARSHLY. And those cucks who get in the way of this happening (whether it's a schoolteacher protecting the bully from retribution, or society saying you can't rape feminist girls) need to be dealt with too, either by attacking them directly or just waiting till their backs are turned before taking action against the provocateurs.

"A lot of feminists claim to be lesbians because it gives them an excuse for why they get laid by the opposite sex as seldom as the incels they mock for being virgins. In this way, they issue incels two challenges: the first, to prove these girls are actually heterosexual, by making them come hard when a dick is slammed into them; and the second, to prove that the incel is in fact capable of getting laid by raping them. Their entire women's studies curriculum is just a bunch of busywork to support a program that ultimately amounts to sending endless taunts men's way, whether it's through a SlutWalk that says 'Every man but you can have this' or by going transgender and saying, 'Look, I'm a man now; prove otherwise!' It's fun proving to them that they're very much still a girl in the bedroom, even if they did cut their hair short or whatever. (I personally interpret short hair on a woman as an invitation to grab it close to the scalp and force my dick further down her throat when she's choking and trying to come up for air.)

"Some of these feminist girls, unfortunately, are so far gone with their borderline personality disorder and whatnot that probably the most compassionate favor you can do for them is to put them out their misery. I'm thinking the best approach would be to start choking them during sex as usual, but this time don't let go till her body falls limp in death. Maybe psychologically prepare her by saying, 'One of these days when I'm inside of you and have my hands around your throat cutting off your air supply, I'm just going to strangle you to death.' That way, every time you do it, she won't know whether it's going to be the time you finally snuff her out, and the intensity of her fear for her life will stimulate her all the more."

Nathan Larson notes that femoids' refusal to have sex with incels is worse than partial-birth abortion

25 December 2017 — Catlett, Virginia — Neoreactionary libertarian congressional candidate Nathan Larson noted today that femoids' refusal to have sex with incels is worse than partial-birth abortion.

"Cuckservatives say that partial-birth abortion is bad because it snuffs out a young life before it had a chance to enjoy the wonders of life (including, for example, falling in love and enjoying intimacy and making a family).

"They say that partial-birth abortion is worse than, say, first-trimester abortion because a baby at that point is much more developed and has the capability to feel pain and maybe even to have some rudimentary thoughts.

"Well, what about incels? Incels are fully born and experience pain even more acutely, and what is more, it is a pain that goes on and on, while the aborted baby at least is put out of his misery. Incels' lives come and go without any opportunity to enjoy the pleasures of sex and babymaking. How can a consistent pro-family pro-lifer condone this?

"Meanwhile, leftist femoids argue in favor of abortion, saying, 'No child should have to grow up knowing he was unwanted.' Yet they don't open their legs to incels and make them feel wanted. So in the end, they too are hypocrites."

Nathan Larson delivers encouraging Christmas message to incels

25 December 2017 — Catlett, Virginia — Neoreactionary libertarian congressional candidate Nathan Larson delivered a Christmas message to incels.

"How is the way feminists treat incels supposed to 'teach men not to rape'?" Larson asked rhetorically. "Feminists shame incels for not being able to get laid, rather than helping them to either get sex or find peace with celibacy. The result of this is that they're going to push men to desperate measures such as rape, homicide, suicide, etc.

"If you saw someone suffering and in desperate need, wouldn't it be compassionate to offer help? On Christmas Day, for example, some restaurateurs will take in the homeless from the cold and offer them a warm meal. Girls, however, will not open their legs to let incels into their warm pussies. They are like Ebenezer Scrooge in their stinginess.

"Despite this cruel indifference from girls, incels are supposed to, out of the goodness of their hearts, tell them, 'I respect your wishes to fuck Chad and then complain later that he didn't commit to you, when you're looking for a cuck to help raise your bastard children.'

"Why would that be better than telling a girl, 'I'm going to kidnap and rape you now, because I love you and want to have a relationship and kids with you, and it's the law of nature that strong men take what they want'?

"She needs to know that saving up the money to buy that van to kidnap her in, and setting up a basement dungeon equipped with shackles and chains just for her, and then patiently stalking her for days to learn her habits before risking life in prison to abduct her at knifepoint, were all labors of love. Chad never put that much thought and devotion into obtaining her wonderful pussy, because for him, it was easy. Only incels have that kind of love that will put everything on the line and work tirelessly to overcome every obstacle.

"When there's a news report about how some college girl got kidnapped, there should be indignation against the FBI for investigating, because they are trying to get in the way of love. But on the other hand, the fight against adversity is what makes a truly exciting and romantic love story, so maybe having these antagonists in the way is all for the good. Books and movies can be written about the struggle against the odds to consummate forbidden love. This is the source of great literature and drama.

"Alphas have looks, betas have money, and incels have rape. Each step down the ladder means there is a harder struggle to obtain intimacy with beautiful girls.

"But notice also, each step down the ladder also requires additional solidarity. Alphas can get pussy just by walking into a club by themselves and picking out a girl of their choice. Betas have to organize with other men to make money through profit-seeking businesses. Incels may have to organize to conduct gang rapes.

"Ever wonder why there's all this fuss about human trafficking? It's because feminists see that in the future, incels will get girls from the black market the same way drug users get drugs. Pussy is the most powerful drug of all, and the most sought-after, so surely there will be a demand. Girls will be trafficked like cocaine by submersible vessels ('femo-submarines') from South America, or smuggled across the border. Some will be produced in underground laboratories in the U.S. Because it's no longer possible to obtain girls in the traditional way of going to a patriarchy-respecting church and talking to the girl's father to arrange a marriage, this clandestine industry will spring up the same way that the narcotics industry sprang up in the 20th century, when narcotics were banned from being sold over the counter.

"As a neoreactionary libertarian, I say, legalize the sale of women, so that our communities will no longer be ravaged by criminal organizations funded by this illicit trade. When women are treated as property, the sellers (just like drug manufacturers) will have an incentive to maintain their reputation by upholding rigorous standards of quality and purity so that the consumer will be safer.

"Fret not, my incel brothers -- for now, we are subjugated, but in the future, we will be on top in more ways than one."

Nathan Larson vows to stamp out involuntary celibacy

24 December 2017 — Catlett, Virginia — Neoreactionary libertarian congressional candidate Nathan Larson promised today to completely eradicate involuntary celibacy from the white population of the United States.

"Modern civilization has wiped out smallpox, drastically curtailed the infant mortality rate, and eliminated mass hunger from the industrialized world, among many other accomplishments," Larson noted. "The story of the last two centuries is one of the white man's intellect vanquishing one scourge after another, to the point that we might easily grow complacent, thinking we're unstoppable. Yet we still face threats to our existence in the form of pernicious mind viruses that jeopardize our ability to survive and reproduce. The truth is our only vaccine that can turn the tide against these epidemics. Let us now turn our attention to defeating feminism, the ideological pestilence that has brought about a sexual famine in a society that otherwise would have been blessed with plenty.

"The growing hordes of increasingly angry and militant sex-deprived young white men are becoming an alarming threat to national security. According to incel4life's post, It won't happen in our life time, but when it does, the Beta Uprising will be an amazing time to live in:

It won't happen any time soon but when it does, it will be spectacular. Inceldom will reach critical mass and there will be an outbreak of incels overthrowing degenerate society. The bottom 20% of men will rise up and slaughter the top 80% in a surprise attack. 35yo incels will storm the high school and slaughter all the lil Chads, and put the prime jailbaits in cages so they can fuck and impregnate them when they are done. Every law of what is socially acceptable will be broken. The end goal will be to implement a monogamous society so that every man can have a wife, but in this transitionary period there will be a large surplus of women due to all the Chads being slaughtered, so we will see things like top ranking incels having harems full of women.

"cookin_breakfast remarks:

Sex is a resource, like food or water. Without it, people lose their minds (see: every non-gang related mass shooting). Countless wars have been fought over other resources like food, water, and oil. Somehow society has convinced the majority of people that sex is not a vital resource, and that if you aren't getting any then just get the fuck over it. We are the dogs outside the city gates, starving as we see the townespeople enjoying a well cooked meal in their homes. A time will come when the gates must be stormed. Men have banded together and fought for far less.

"I have heard the anguished cries of the incel masses, and I say to them: I know your frustration, and I have come to liberate you. The Republicans promised a chicken in every pot and a car in every backyard. My campaign promise is a sexy teenage girl in the bed of every heterosexual white boy who wants one. And how will we do this? By enslaving women, of course. You can't make an omelet without forcibly taming some hens and harnessing their reproductive resources for your own ends.

"Just think, there are almost 20 million teenage girls, with tight teenage pussies and perky teenage breasts, in the United States alone. And you can't have any of them. They're all for Chad. It's reminiscent of this passage from Socialism by Ludwig von Mises about Russia:

Russia is a comparatively underpopulated country. lts soil is much better endowed by nature than that of any other nation. lt offers the most advantageous conditions for the growing of all kinds of cereals, fruits, seeds and plants. Russia owns immense pastures and almost inexhaustible forests. lt has the richest resources for the production of gold, silver, platinum, iron, copper, nickel, manganese and all other metals, and of oil. But for the despotism of the Czars and the lamentable inadequacy of the communist system, its population could long since have enjoyed the highest standard of living.

"All those resources, that could've gone toward giving the people a happy and comfortable life, instead went to furnish the commissars, the politburo, etc. with chauffeurs, dachas, etc.

"In contrast, here we live in the western world, where almost everything we could want is available in abundance. Want food? The convenience store is down the street. Want information? The Internet offers a wealth of knowledge.

"Want pussy? Sorry, you're out of luck. Capitalism has not yet been harnessed to make pussy available in abundance to all who want it.

"But it could be. Femoids are just a product like any other, to be produced and distributed via the economic system. Yes, the elites will always have the best, but the common man and even the poor should have something, unless the system is broken. V. Orvall Watts wrote in 'Industrialism: Friend or Foe,' 'If any American goes barefoot, it is from choice, not necessity, for our mass production has made shoes so abundant that Americans commonly give away or throw into the trash cans better shoes than the shoddy new footwear the victims of Communist 'planning' can buy in their dingy shops.' If that's true of shoes, why shouldn't also an important resource like love be available to everyone who wants it?

"People get caught up in thinking, 'But there's only one woman for each man!' That's a biological fact, but technology can change biology. With enough ingenuity, we can produce all that we could ever need or want.

"If you're a kissless virgin, don't worry. When I'm in charge, you'll have more pussy than you'll know what to do with. Your new problem will be trying to arrange your schedule to where you'll have time to slide into the pussies of all the different beautiful teenage girls you'll suddenly have sexual access to. You'll be struggling to get any work done sometimes because they'll be constantly prancing around the house naked, their supple young breasts bouncing as they approach and their sexy hips and tight young asses swaying as they walk away. Always, like cute little nymphs, they will be a constant presence, brushing their hair like Rapunzel, giggling and laughing with each other with the playfulness of youth, etc. But, since there will be little for them to do, really, in this age of plenty, these horny bitches, eager to enjoy the newfound pleasures of sex which you've introduced them to, will be trying to get in your pants so much, you'll practically have to beat them away with a stick.

"Maybe on a lazy Saturday afternoon, you'll be sitting at the computer when your spunky, feisty, and short brunette wife walks in naked with a bowl of grapes and starts slowly feeding them to you one by one while your voluptuously busty and steamily passionate blonde Russian wife, also stark naked, slowly and sensually kisses all over your body as you try to remain focused, until finally she dares to block your view entirely as she straddles you with the body, her hot pussy rubbing against your stomach as, her lips parted slightly, she looks intensely hungrily deep into your eyes for a moment before closing hers, and french kisses you, so that you feel her tongue dancing with yours; and while this is going on, you feel your brunette wife's hands grabbing at the sides of your pants and tugging downward, till she pulls them and your underwear past your knees, ankles, and feet, leaving you naked as well.

"Then she pushes your legs back to gain access to put her face between your ass cheeks and begins licking down between them, leisurely savoring the taste of your sweat as though it's nectar of the most divine god of the multiverse, swirling with her tongue all around in smaller and smaller circles like a whirlpool till she reaches the center, flicking the sphincter playfully with her tongue and and then french kissing your anus, putting her tongue deeply inside and massaging it from within, before withdrawing it so she can turn her attention to worshiping your genitals, teabagging you, sucking on both your balls at once and then your left ball and your right ball individually like they're Charms Blow Pops, before finally putting your penis in her mouth so that you have that exquisite sensation of having your tongue in one woman's mouth and your penis in another's. You feel yourself getting harder as she takes you deeper and deeper down her throat with the expert skill that you've trained her so well in, teaching her how to do everything just the way you like. Finally you move to get up from your chair, the brunette still sucking on you as she walks on her knees a few steps along with you before finally giving and rising to her feet to follow you, the Russian girl right behind her, as you go to move the action to the bed.

"Yes, in the era in which I am in power, many such scenes as this will take place in every household, and will become so commonplace as to be taken for granted like tap water, high-speed Internet, or any other modern amenity, as pussy will be superabundant throughout the land for every white man to enjoy. There will just be endless supply of it in every variation imaginable, like ice cream flavors or TV channels, and available just as easily. It requires only putting the human mind resolutely to the purpose of accomplishing it.

"In the novel Animal Farm, the dueling politicians had the slogans 'Vote for Snowball and the three-day week' and 'Vote for Napoleon and the full manger'. I say, 'Vote for Nathan Larson and the endless supply of teenage pussy'.

"I salute Elliot Rodger for raising awareness of incels' plight. His situation was tragic, but his actions were heroic. Men like him, by waking people up to the reality of what's going on, may help to prevent more bloodshed in the long run by making a violent beta uprising unnecessary. I say to the public, please don't let those 20 people have been stabbed, shot, and/or run over for nothing. Take heed, before it's too late."

Nathan Larson reflects on how the libertarian movement became useless to incels

21 December 2017 — Catlett, Virginia — Neoreactionary libertarian congressional candidate Nathan Larson reflected today on how the libertarian movement became useless to incels.

"Libertarian reforms, accompanied by a cultural rejection of feminism, could probably solve incels' problems," he remarked. "All that's needed are the following libertarian policy changes:

1. Allow older men to marry teen girls
2. Abolish compulsory, state-funded education of teen girls
3. Abolish the welfare state that financially enables girls to bang Chad instead of being loyal to a good provider
4. Get rid of spousal and child support laws that reward disloyal wives

"That's pretty much it. If a teen girl had nothing to do other than (a) enter the workplace as, say, a secretary, or to (b) marry a good provider, start a family, and sit home taking care of the kids, she'd probably choose option (b). Teen girls usually just want to feel 'grown up' which is one of the reasons they start banging Chad. But starting a family would serve that purpose even better, because having and raising kids is the quintessential sign of adulthood for women. There are plenty of ugly men who are capable of being good providers and making those dreams a reality.

"So then, when people run for office on the Libertarian ticket, why don't we usually hear them talk about those four reforms? Instead, these days they're all about free trade, free immigration, LGBTQ rights, etc. Probably part of the problem is that the Party got taken over by Jews like Nick Sarwark and his caucus. I'm all for ending the war on drugs too, as Sarwark proposes, but if you ask a typical incel which he'd prefer to have, drugs or pussy, he'd probably say pussy. (Remember the bridge scene at the end of Half Baked?) Drugs also are not going to secure the existence of our people and a future for white children. So, maybe a shift of priorities is in order.

"Another problem is that Libertarians are probably worried if they talk about teen girls marrying older men, they'll look like perverts, even though 100 or 200 years ago, such marriages were common and produced lots of babies to keep the white race from dying out. It also takes some balls to propose a major reform like getting rid of compulsory, state-funded education. And Libertarians these days aren't known for having much balls.

"That's the real problem. Modern Libertarians have no balls. They don't believe anymore in risking being laughed at or vehemently opposed for putting daring ideas out there. They think fighting for freedom is supposed to be easy, rather than a hard struggle against adversity, so they shy away from controversial topics.

"So instead of supporting Libertarians, when people want reforms that are going to help incels, they have to turn to, say, the alt-right. The alt-right has a lot of downsides, though, such as the fact that most of them are economically illiterate and want stuff like single-payer healthcare. But I guess we don't have much choice but to support the alt-right, because it would be really hard to restore and revitalize the libertarian movement at this point. We have to go with whichever group will oppose the feminism that is rendering so many good men incel."

Nathan Larson ponders the reason for fellow libertarians' animosity toward him

21 December 2017 — Catlett, Virginia — Neoreactionary libertarian congressional candidate Nathan Larson noted today, 'I've pondered many times, why is it that fellow libertarians hate me so much? Partly, I think, it's because they expect the fight for liberty to be easy. They think all they have to do is take a few relatively uncontroversial free market stances, like advocating pot legalization (which at this point, even the Democrats and Republicans are getting on board with), and by slow increments we can achieve liberty without needing to really make a lot of personal sacrifices.

"The problem is, when someone comes along who is willing to do stuff like serve 46 months in prison for threatening the President, and go into a courtroom and argue that adult-child sex should be legal, it makes them look bad, because then there's someone who is willing to suffer loss of freedom, loss of friends, loss of livelihood, and many other forms of persecution, for what he believes; which they're not willing to do.

"Therefore, the only way they can defend their own unwillingness to do that same stuff, is to denigrate it and say that, for example, the President has a right not to be threatened, despite the fact that the President is infringing quite a few rights of the people at the point of a gun. (He may not be personally aiming the gun, but the threat of the gun is always present; and if you ever get raided by the feds for, say, drugs, there probably will be quite a few literal guns pointed at you, at least till they've slapped some handcuffs on you.)

"In Freedom Gulch Podcast 20: Trump's Military, Nathan Larson, Tom Garrett, SpaceX, Libertarian Party member Will Hammer references my loss of my daughter to the state in a child dependency and neglect proceeding:

He has a kid who he's just given up trying to get custody for, I think just earlier this year. But his wife, or the baby's mother, actually just committed suicide like a year ago or two. And that's what caused where, you know, they're trying to get custody of the child, and he, you know, is talking about being sexually attracted to children. And so, I'm really glad that the Libertarian Party of Virginia took a stand, and made sure that we separate ourselves from pedophiles, and just horrible people like that.

"In that court case, the prosecutor said to the jury during closing arguments:

Also, something that is very unique in this case is what we are calling prospective harm. There has been no allegations that Mr. Larson has actually done anything to Piper today. He's never seen her. But will he have the opportunity in the future? Will he have that ability to harm her? Very rarely do we do this. Most of the time, unfortunately with the Department of Human Services, we have to wait for a child to get hurt, wait for a child victim. However, in this case, we can stop that.

"I don't think it's all that rare; I think there are plenty of cases where parents are declared unfit based solely on allegations of mental illness. It's called 'predictive neglect'. Parents are being required to submit to mental health treatment as a condition of getting custody of their kids back from the state. The 1990 Libertarian Party platform had a plank stating, 'We further advocate: a. the repeal of all laws permitting involuntary psychiatric treatment of any person' but that has since been removed.

"So I would ask: is there, at this point, any other Libertarian Party member left besides me, who objects to the state's taking away kids from parents whom the state admits have committed no abuse or neglect, much less any violation of the non-aggression principle? Will Hammer, while he was on the topic of that court case, had the opportunity to make a point about the state's infringing liberty and interfering with families, but didn't.

"This is why I say, today's Libertarian Party, and those who represent it, are generally not the kind of strong defenders of liberty we used to see in times past. It is because they have become so weak that when someone actually does take a strong stance in defense of liberty, they have to try to attack that person, to make themselves look better in comparison.

"Another aspect of the situation is, Libertarians didn't really mind that I was hanging around and helping them behind the scenes with various stuff, like their website; but once I was in the public eye and being attacked, they suddenly decided to dissociate themselves from me. This is sort of like how the 'cool kid' in school will hang around the 'nerd' and get his help with schoolwork and whatnot, but as soon as he gets ridiculed for associating with the nerd, he'll turn against his 'friend' so he can look cool to his buddies.

"Basically these are junior high school social dynamics in play, where Libertarians try to conform to the expectations of the general public so they can be popular, rather than being themselves. This makes them pretty boring and forgettable, though, just like everyone else who tried to fit in."

Nathan Larson points out to prospective neoreactionary libertarian candidates that sanity is not a requirement to serve in Congress

20 December 2017 — Catlett, Virginia — Neoreactionary libertarian congressional candidate Nathan Larson today paused to remind prospective neoreactionary libertarian candidates that sanity is not a requirement to serve in Congress.

"We need to step up our candidate recruitment efforts," Larson noted. "As you may recall, during last year's recruitment drive, I used the sex offender registry to identify prospects. Now it is time to expand those efforts to also include those who have been labeled as mentally ill.

"Article One, Section Two of the United States Constitution states simply, 'No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.'

"A 2002 Congressional Research Service report found, 'It is now well-settled that these three qualifications for office in the Constitution are the exclusive qualifications for Congress (and are not merely 'minimum' qualifications), and that they are fixed and may not be supplemented by Congress nor by any State unilaterally.'

"The reason for this is that the founding fathers didn't want to give psychologists too much power over our country's politics (and if you've read Whores of the Court, you understand why). As a voter, you can lose your franchise for being declared incompetent, but you can never lose your right to stand for election to the nation's highest legislative body. Pursuant to Section 4 of the twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the President can be removed from office if he's declared unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office; there's no such procedure for removing Congressmen deemed mentally ill.

"If someone wanted to enlist in the military or try to get a security clearance to be able to hold a federal job involving access to classified information, maybe questions would be asked about their mental health. But it is entirely within the discretion of the voters to elect a Congressman either without regard to his mental disorders, or even because of his mental disorders!

"Autism is sometimes said to be a superpower. Other superpowers I've been diagnosed with include pedophilia, depressive disorder, and an unspecified personality disorder with antisocial, narcissistic, and paranoid features. It's always best when you're able to leverage a number of different superpowers to create a whole that's stronger than the sum of the parts, much like how Captain Planet was a combination of Earth, Fire, Wind, Water, and Heart powers.

"Yet, in this age of transvaluation of values, what's needed is not so much a superhero, as a supervillain. Men who try to play the chivalric hero, after all, get played for chumps these days. Captain Save a Hoe gets disrespected and taken advantage of, because nice guys are so abundant that women feel they can treat them like trash, knowing there's always another sucker who'll come along supplicating for her attention. Meanwhile, the aloof badboy, with his dark triad traits of narcissism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism, puts women dead last in his list of priorities, and gets rewarded with pussy.

"I'm quite serious, by the way, when I say that certain mental disorders are also strengths. A little bit of divergent thinking is needed now and then to avoid groupthink. Somebody has to be willing to say the don't feel like going to Abilene. Usually the only one who's going to be willing to say that is somewhat of an oddball.

"But this is the whole point of having third party and independent candidates. We're supposed to be offbeat. We run our campaigns on a shoestring and don't have expensive handlers telling us how to manage every detail of how we present ourselves to appeal to the public; and even if we did, we'd probably be too headstrong to listen. The major parties already provide two centrist candidates who are doing their best to try to appear like normal, everyday, average millionaires; who needs a third one? It would be redundant.

"Threatening the President is sometimes viewed as a manifestation of impulsivity and uncontrolled anger. Yet, as Ian Ironwood notes, anger can be a strength: 'Righteous anger allows the 98 lb. weakling to attack the bully balls-out and kick his ass by surprise. Righteous anger allows you to put your foot down when your wife suggests something so crazy and demeaning to you that you seriously wonder if she’s mentally ill. Righteous anger allows you to motivate yourself to right wrongs and correct injustices.'

"What people do in politics often doesn't appear, at first glance, to make much logical sense. Libertarian economists have often scoffed at the silly voters who go to all the trouble to show up at the polls when it's not worth the opportunity cost. Yet we've seen in two elections in our lifetime, the United States presidential election in Florida, 2000 and the Virginia House of Delegates election, 2017, that the results came down to only a handful of votes, or even just one vote. What seems, in the simplistic models of the economists, to be irrational can actually be rational once you take all the variables into account.

"The public choice theorists also say that the moderate politicians have the best chance of winning because they can attract the most votes from all sides. This ignores the fact that extremists are often more passionate about their ideas, which can be a force multiplier. It also ignores that the most 'extreme' and therefore stereotypically 'loony' ideas can be the most ideologically consistent and therefore the most logical, at least internally. While people find comfort in being on the winning side and conforming to society's norms, there's also a countervailing tendency to root for the underdog and to take an interest in what's offbeat.

"Politics, like seduction, is more about emotional connection than cold logic. It's more about rhetoric than substance. It's about not only being right, but being strong enough to fight for what's right. And as Neil Strauss noted in The Game, 'in a fight the insane generally have a competitive edge.'"

Nathan Larson calls for abolishing all import tariffs and quotas

20 December 2017 — Catlett, Virginia — Neoreactionary libertarian congressional candidate Nathan Larson called for completely free trade.

"For the benefit of the American consumer, we should allow goods to cross borders freely. We shouldn't even have a World Trade organization or try to make trade deals; we should just unilaterally eliminate all of our own barriers to international trade. The international division of labor allows resources to be used in the most productive ways, making everyone wealthier, except for the rent seekers who make money off of getting the government to cut off their customers' access to the competition."

Larson comments on his Norman Bates style of campaigning

19 December 2017 — Catlett, Virginia — Neoreactionary libertarian congressional candidate Nathan Larson commented today on his Norman Bates style of campaigning.

"As a leader of the neoreactionary libertarian movement, it is my duty not only to recruit candidates for public office but also train them in how to be effective," Larson noted. "Donald Trump focuses more on insulting women, but I think for us, what will work better is to frighten women. The best way to do this is to adopt the Norman Bates archetype as a style of thinking and behavior. Red_Shambhala notes:

It just proves that the guys who made this film, Hitchcock, the writer and the actor were psychological geniuses.

Villains, rapists and murderers usually end up being fetishized by women, they have BDSM artwork on DeviantArt dedicated to them, have BDSM fanfic written about them, the RL killers even have love letters sent to them, etc.

Women are socially hypergamous and sexually submissive/masochist, aroused by fear, pain and loss of control. Hence, they use insults that evoke disgust (creepy, strange, weird) rather than fear (scary asshole, bad boy tehehe, vagina-tingle).

I've read somewhere that the early filmmakers, the one who made these movies about noble Cowboys and Civil War, John Wayne etc. were sometimes baffled upon finding out that the women were more interested in the villains rather than in the noble, harmless Christcuck characters.

Hitchock and co., however, were "blackpilled", if you will, enough to realize that you must make your villain as creepy, as disgusting and as much a low-status loser as possible if you want to scare women.

(It's the same with The Silence of the Lambs. Hannibal Lecter is this dangerous high-status intellectual, while the actual villain is a crossdresser, which doesn't make Stacie's vagina tingle. Once Hannibal was played by a better-looking actor like in the series now, women started creating BDSM fanfic and DeviantArt shit about him. Female hypergamy and female masochism cannot be overestimated. These animals have no bounds. Man is civilization, woman is the forest that must be cultivated first before you can create more than primitive mud huts.)

"The romance novels quite often are about a woman being dominated by a powerful rapist. 50 Shades of Grey comes to mind, of course, but there are many others. Mother Earth Father Sky is about an Aleut girl whose family gets massacred, and who is then forced to become engaged to marry a muscular, domineering man of the same tribe that killed her people. The threat of impending rape hanging over the protagonist's head for much of the book probably excited female readers. But what seems much more creepy to a woman is the thought of her hotel shower curtain being ripped open by a Norman Bates type.

"Why would I want women to fear me? As Niccolò Machiavelli wrote in The Prince:

The reply is, that one ought to be both feared and loved, but as it is difficult for the two to go together, it is much safer to be feared than loved, if one of the two has to be wanting. For it may be said of men in general that they are ungrateful, voluble, dissemblers, anxious to avoid danger, and covetous of gain ; as long as you benefit them, they are entirely yours; they offer you their blood, their goods, their life, and their children, as I have before said, when the necessity is remote; but when it approaches, they revolt. And the prince who has relied solely on their words, without making other preparations, is ruined, for the friendship which is gained by purchase and not through grandeur and nobility of spirit is merited but is not secured, and at times is not to be had. And men have less scruple in offending one who makes himself loved than one who makes himself feared; for love is held by a chain of obligation which, men being selfish, is broken whenever it serves their purpose; but fear is maintained by a dread of punishment which never fails.

"Although Norman Bates is the ultimate standard that I try to uphold, I'm sometimes told I bear a closer resemblance to Jeffrey Dahmer. Either way, it plays well into my Machiavellian political schemes. If I'm a creepy guy and I say, for example, that my preference is to have sex with 15-year-old girls, then that gives every woman who's older than 15 a reason to support lowering the marriageable age, so that I will go after those younger girls instead of her. Likewise, if I say that the U.S. should invade foreign countries and seize their women to give to the American incels, American women have every reason to support that, since that diverts the incels' attention toward those foreign women and away from them. By triggering women's survival instincts in this manner, I can manipulate their behavior and thereby more easily ascend the ladder to power."

Nathan Larson pays tribute to the fallen hero, William Atchison

William Atchison

19 December 2017 — Catlett, Virginia — Neoreactionary libertarian congressional candidate Nathan Larson noted the brave sacrifice of William Atchison in the Aztec High School shooting.

"Atchison recognized that cucked-out whites are the source of America's problems, and decided to sound a wake-up call," Larson noted. "Prior to this he had an illustrious career curating the main page of Encyclopedia Dramatica, adding pro-Hitler and pro-Trump Articles of the Now, Pictures of the Now, Videos of the Now, etc.

"Recognizing his dismal prospects for living a decent life in this cucked-out republic, he decided to go out with a bang rather than Lie Down And Rot. Kids, try to be more like William Atchison and make your pathetic, miserable, useless life count for something.

"Adults, remember that public schools have a higher rate of school shootings than private schools. If you want to keep kids safe, then you should support abolition of the public education system. Hopefully we'll see more William Atchisons step up to force the issue."

Nathan Larson draws parallels between war on drugs and war on child pornography

16 December 2017 — Catlett, Virginia — Neoreactionary libertarian congressional candidate Nathan Larson drew parallels between the war on drugs and the war on child pornography.

"In both cases, there were some dubious claims being bandied about, encouraged by government-funded propaganda, that most people believed," Larson noted. "Remember the 'This Is Your Brain on Drugs' commercials? People used to talk about how cannabis killed brain cells. This was based on some flawed research by Gabriel G. Nahas, later debunked in John P. Morgan's Marijuana Myths, Marijuana Facts.

"Federal law divides controlled substances into five schedules based on criteria such as abuse potential, addictiveness, medical use, safety, etc. Cannabis is one of the safest drugs known to man, yet it remains in Schedule I, the most tightly controlled category, despite the statutory mandate that the Drug Enforcement Administration and Department of Health and Human Services remove it from Schedule I if scientific evidence shows it should does not belong in the same group as drugs like heroin. John Gettman notes:

Until 1988 no scientist in the world knew how marijuana caused its characteristic effects. The discovery of the cannabinoid receptor system revolutionized understanding of marijuana. Research findings from 1988 to 1994 provide the key scientific basis for marijuana's rescheduling. In correspondence Thomas Constantine stated in 1995 that DEA did not know of any information that would require new proceedings. After receiving my petition and studying it for 30 months DEA admitted in December 1997 that it provided sufficient grounds for the removal of marijuana and all cannabinoid drugs from schedules 1 and 2. It turns out that there was sufficient information on record, and I conclude that DEA just wasn't aware of its significance. After all, they're not scientists over there, are they?

But they are scientists over at HHS. They knew about these new research findings; a few of the most important were discovered in the labs at the National Institute of Mental Health. Federal law requires HHS to summarize and publish marijuana research findings every three years, yet this process ground to a halt as soon as Donna Shalala took office as the Secretary of Health and Human Services, just as the key receptor discoveries occurred. I want to be very clear about this. These discoveries were well publicized in the press and in scientific journals ­­ but they were never summarized in the triennial reports to Congress and the people that are required by law.

Now the law also requires that marijuana have a high potential for abuse to be a schedule 1 drug, or even a schedule 2 drug. Why, when it comes to marijuana, is it okay for the federal government to ignore the laws we the people passed in our democratically elected legislature? Why is it that they seek to maintain marijuana prohibition at any cost? At a cost to the rule of law, and at the cost of over 700,000 arrests per year?

Why is it that the scientists at HHS have known that marijuana does not belong in schedule 1 or schedule 2 and have never acted to remove it? It seems logical that if High Times and I could file a rescheduling petition that HHS could too. In fact the CSA states that HHS can begin proceedings itself, without waiting for an interested party to file a petition. I suggest that one of the reasons the rescheduling petition is currently stalled over at HHS is that several scientists on the public payroll over there are wrestling with their consciences over these very issues. Will the loss of scientific integrity become another casualty to maintaining marijuana prohibition at all costs?

"Scientific integrity becomes a casualty to political objectives all the time, though. Consider, for example, the Rind et al. controversy. In 1999, Congress passed a resolution that 'condemns and denounces all suggestions in the article 'A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples' that indicate that sexual relationships between adults and 'willing' children are less harmful than believed and might be positive for 'willing' children'.

"They put 'willing' in quotation marks as though children don't have wills of their own, from a very early age, as they begin to look around them, explore, and try to reason what means would be suitable for accomplishing their goals. The tendency of young people to show curiosity and use logic and experimentation to seek out answers is evident in the fact that they often master new technology more readily than adults. They tend to have a better understanding of what is on the cutting edge of, say, culture, long before it hits adults' radar screens. Even when they're bored with what's being taught in school, they still will memorize vast amounts of trivia on whatever topics interest them. Science in fact shows that brain processing power peaks at age 18, even though other mental strengths, like vocabulary, tend to peak much later.

"But it takes the politicians a long time to adjust the laws to reflect scientific reality. Even today, Virginia still does not have an effective medical cannabis law, despite studies showing that for many patients it would be a safer alternative to opiates. Likewise, Congress has not heeded studies that suggest legalizing child pornography could actually reduce rates of child sexual assault.

"Even in those instances in which the public does acknowledge the truth and begin to favor change, it can take the politicians a long time to catch up, because they respond to whatever interest group is making its voice heard the loudest. Our political system is designed to respond to whatever cranks and crackpots believe in their cause enough to show up to a high school gymnasium at 9 AM on a Saturday morning and vote in an obscure political party nominating convention that 99 percent of the electorate didn't even know was going on. We end up with what P.J. O'Rourke called the 'Dictatorship of Boredom' in which the last person left awake gets to spend all the tax money. It was set up this way by design, under the theory that making it really time- and energy-consuming to stay engaged in the political process would tend to select for the more responsible citizens who would make better decisions. But it's also an incredibly inefficient and frustrating system for anyone who has any new ideas they want to implement.

"At any given time, there's usually some mass delusion that the public is (or even worse, the more vocal and politically organized parts of the public are) buying into. A major reason for this is that open debate so often gets squelched as people try to shut down any dissidents. As Louis Brandeis writes in Whitney v. California, 'It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears.' Yet, those who seek to fulfill this function often find themselves ostracized and banned from just about everywhere. Styxhexenhammer666 says in Thoughts on Creepy Milo Yiannopoulos and his Man-Boy Love Rant (Take Two):

And when I said that I would ban people from my channel, I wasn't indicating that I would ban them for disagreeing with me. If you disagree with me based on the fact that you think that Milo is actually blameless, and that those audio clips were severely fudged, which I don't believe; I'm taking him at face value on what he's saying — but if you believe that and disagree with me on that token, that's perfectly fine. I would never ban somebody from my channel for just disagreeing with me. What I'm saying though is I have zero tolerance for people who are fuckin' perverts. If you're trying to defend him, and you do believe, as I do, that that's what he's referring to, yeah, you're gonna get banned from the channel. Sorry about that. You can call it censorship if you want.

I draw a line in the sand between victimless crimes and crimes with a victim. If it doesn't have a victim, it shouldn't be a crime. But what he's talking about, or so it seems here, it does have a victim. In fact, he himself was apparently one, and has no problem with that fact, and went on to generally applaud the very idea of young boys and older men having sexual intercourse or having some sort of romantic relationship. I'm sorry, I find that funky. I don't like it. I don't think that it's right. I also don't think that it's a victimless thing to do. If it had no victim, it wouldn't be in my mind a crime, but it does have a victim. That's the point. And that's where it differs from some of these other issues. I had people comparing it to the drug war on the last video. "Oh, well here you are, saying you don't like moralism." Moralism is about the government is putting you in jail, fining you or whatever, because you broke a law for which the only victim that potentially existed at all is yourself.

And I'm saying this, further. I am saying that having Milo there, not disavowed by anybody but having the general applause of large numbers of people on the right, and talking about, you know, oh, I'm great, or I'm the Internet supervillain, or whatever the fuck he says about himself, having him up there is not a positive thing for any movement he's associated with. And I don't want to be associated with that stuff either.

"Yet, according to libertarian theory (specifically, the nonaggression principle), the only forms of aggression are force and fraud. Usually in child pornography videos, no one is being physically forced to do anything. Children are in a situation where they're required to obey the authority of their parents, but let's face it, we spend our whole lives under the authority of someone or another who has power to punish us for not obeying their wishes. If we were to say that makes children unable to consent, then we would have to conclude that adults aren't free either. Doyle Brunson writes:

Thoreau said, "the mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation." Most people are prevented from living life as they want. In childhood, they're required to do chores they hate. They grow up having to conform at school. As adults they must shake hands they don't want to shake, socialize with people they dislike, pretend they're feeling "fine" when they're feeling miserable and "act" in control of situations where, in truth, they feel frightened and unsure. These people — the majority of folks you meet every day — are actors. They present themselves to you as people different than they really are.

"It wouldn't be too much of a stretch to say that life is like one big child porn film, where daddy gets what he wants because you know that otherwise he might not take you to Toys 'R' Us later. But, in between sessions of sucking on his penis and getting in the doggy style position for him to take you from behind, maybe you do at least get to play with your dollhouse occasionally, and get an ice cream now and then for being a good girl. And hey, there's some joy to be found too in pleasing others and being loved for it. We comfort ourselves with such consolations that help us get through our lives. If this all sounds very dark, what can I say. This is why neoreaction is sometimes called the Dark Enlightenment.

"So, if kids aren't being forced to have sex (beyond what the situation would be if they weren't kids, anyway) that mostly just leaves fraud as the possible form of aggression that's involved. Yet these children are usually not being defrauded either. What would they be being defrauded out of? Girls belong to their fathers anyway, and boys' virginity doesn't really matter compared to girls'. What is the fraud that is supposedly being perpetrated on them; what are they being led to believe that isn't true?

"I think a lot of times, those kids are well aware of what sex is and what it's all about. It's just something that people do because it feels good. You don't have to be 18 to comprehend such a simple concept, and decide whether it's something you feel like doing or not. But in the case of girls, their father is the one who's supposed to be making the decision anyway for them. Women remain childlike their whole lives and need guidance from a man, so there's not even all that much difference between a little girl and an adult woman, as far as that's concerned.

"Some moderate libertarians may argue that kids can't exercise self-ownership because they're so much different than adults. I don't really believe they are that much different, though. Most people I've known since childhood have the same basic personality they had when they were kids. A few who were annoying, bratty, and obnoxious mellowed out as they grew older, and they became more pleasant to be around. Aside from that, though, their thought processes, emotional responses, and ways of dealing with other people are pretty much the same as they always were. Lifelong interests, such as music, or computers, or writing, or whatever, are usually formed in childhood.

"We know, too, that children are capable of reaching out into the world on their own initiative in search of sex-related material. Why else would parents and schools have to install content-control software to keep kids away from it? Even prepubescent kids will often find find sex organs and sexual acts rather intriguing, fascinating, and exciting. The times when they don't are usually when they're dutifully following adults' instructions not to explore that content; yet when no one is looking, they'll probably explore anyway if they get the opportunity.

"But let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that aggression is being committed against these children. That still doesn't mean that the government should raid people's homes just for watching an incident of sexual assault that happened many years ago. The creator of the Vicky series, Ken Freeman, is serving a 50-year prison sentence. It's not like he's receiving royalties for the films he produced with his daughter. The viewer who downloads that content for free in some Telegram or Discord or Periscope group is not contributing to the production of more child porn.

"Another parallel between cannabis law and child porn law is that in both cases, the constitutionality of laws against possession was upheld by a 6-3 vote of the Supreme Court of the United States. With regard to cannabis, that decision was Gonzales v. Raich, in which the dissenters wrote, 'If the majority is to be taken seriously, the Federal Government may now regulate quilting bees, clothes drives, and potluck suppers throughout the 50 States. This makes a mockery of James Madison's assurance to the people of New York that the 'powers delegated' to the Federal Government are 'few and defined', while those of the States are 'numerous and indefinite.'

"In Osborne v. Ohio, the child porn case, the dissenters wrote, 'When speech is eloquent and the ideas expressed lofty, it is easy to find restrictions on them invalid. But were the First Amendment limited to such discourse, our freedom would be sterile indeed. Mr. Osborne's pictures may be distasteful, but the Constitution guarantees both his right to possess them privately and his right to avoid punishment under an overbroad law.'"

Nathan Larson points out that censorship of The Daily Stormer proves Anglin was being effective

15 December 2017 — Catlett, Virginia — Neoreactionary libertarian congressional candidate Nathan Larson commented that the censorship of Andrew Anglin, which is being imposed by a media- and state-condoned heckler's veto in the form of DDoS attacks against his site, The Daily Stormer, proves he was being effective.

"Anglin made an astute point when he noted how ironic it was that The Atlantic devoted a cover article to saying what loser he is. If he's so ineffective at what he does, then why is everyone trying to stop him from getting his message out? As Roosh V once said:

The first thing I want to share about free speech is that if you're not paying dearly for it, you're probably not exercising it. If your ideas match what the Establishment wants you to think, in terms of what you learn through the media, through the universities, through entertainment, Hollywood, you are only stating what ideas they put into your mind, the ideas that are safe for you to believe. So when you speak those ideas, it's not really free speech. It's controlled speech. And as long as you exercise controlled speech, no one is gonna come after you. But the second you speak of things that go against what the Establishment wants you to believe, then the attacks come, and attacks are expensive.

"People have also told me that I accomplished nothing by threatening the President, other than getting myself put in jail. But the jail time is how you know that you're making an impact. If threatening the President didn't scare the government and make them feel like they were at risk, then why did they feel the need to throw me in prison for 46 months? They don't throw the average citizen in jail for 46 months. They only go to that kind of extreme when they're really frightened. Their need to react in that way shows how vulnerable they are, and how powerful one individual can be to have that effect on them.

"Even if they want to say what scares them is mental illness, that doesn't really matter, because a mentally ill person can still be correct in his political views, and can still take effective action in pursuit of them. If anything, the mentally ill, by acting in unpredictable ways, may be more effective, in the same way that a chess player who uses an unusual opening may be able to pull an upset against an experienced player who is used to more standard openings. If the mentally ill did not pose a threat to the government, they would not bother putting them in a cage. Even now, the Secret Service is scared of John Hinckley, and wants to limit his freedom as much as possible, because they know their power to protect the President from men like him is limited. They know that a bullet fired by an insane man is as deadly as any other bullet.

"And indeed, the comments the government made are further proof of their fear. On 19 December 2008, Assistant U.S. Attorney Kurt Bohn said, 'This is an individual who is clearly a threat to the people of the United States and no conditions -- by putting him on an ankle bracelet -- are going to ensure the safety of others.' On 2 October 2009, Mr. Bohn said that a threat against the President 'immobilizes numerous assets of the government and is simply conduct that cannot be tolerated.' On 20 August 2010, prosecutor Michael Gaches said, 'I think its very intent, and I think the words are very troubling.' On 7 December 2012, U.S. District Judge Gerald Bruce Lee said, 'I can't control what you do. You probably could get a gun. I don't know. But I worry about it. And so, when you -- when you manifested this behavior in that way, it makes me think what I got to do is protect the public and lock him up for a very, very long time.'

"So what we see is that one man, simply by writing a letter or an email, can scare the hell out of the government. The message the Secret Service, the U.S. Attorneys, and the judges send, by investigating, prosecuting, and imposing severe penalties in these cases, is that if you want to make a difference, it's not such a bad idea to threaten the President. Obviously it has an effect, or they wouldn't bother to punish it so harshly in an attempt to keep people from doing it, or to protect the public from those who have done it. Those 46 months that I was sentenced to, should be an encouragement to other disgruntled citizens to go ahead and threaten to kill the President, because that's how you let your voice be heard and make a difference in this world.

"It's the same way with Andrew Anglin or Roosh V. These men write satirical articles, yes, but there's a grain of truth in satire, and therefore those in power seek to suppress their message and destroy their lives. That is how these dissidents know they hit their target. I should point out too, my own letter to the President contained some elements of satire, which the prosecution more or less admits by noting in the plea agreement, 'The Agents repeatedly asked the defendant if he was joking, letting off steam, or just trying to draw attention to his political views.' They knew it was satire, yet they made an arrest anyway because even satire is a threat to them.

"I just want to point out how much weakness the establishment is manifesting, when it has to go to such lengths to destroy even those dissidents whose only weapon is their pen. Congratulations to Andrew Anglin and all others who, with nothing more than some clever strokes of the keyboard, have forced the state's hand, and revealed them for what they are. From this, we learn, if you want to change the world, go write a satirical thought experiment! Go mock the establishment and the Jew-influenced normies' dysfunctional, cucked-out culture! Yes, they will hit back, but society is going down the tubes anyway, and us with it if we don't put a stop to the decline, so we have little to lose."

Nathan Larson proposes expelling all Jews and Muslims from the United States

14 December 2017 — Catlett, Virginia — Neoreactionary libertarian congressional candidate Nathan Larson proposed expelling all Jews and Muslims from the United States.

"Some people say that morality requires a religion. The problem is, each of these religions has a different code of morality, and each also claims that its people have been chosen by God to rule the world and dominate the heathen. Whether they call it 'God's kingdom on earth' or any other euphemism, what it boils down to is, they all want to organize a religious community to seize power and make the unbelievers their bitch.

"The moderate Muslims raise their children in a faith that, if carried to its logical conclusions, promotes jihad. Those who abide by the principles of this faith become terrorists; while those who don't are hypocrites. What is the point of a faith, if one is not going to practice it consistently? Then it has no power to enforce morality. Yet, if they do practice in consistently, then they wage war against us. They need to go back to the Muslim world where they can live under their caliphates rather than constantly trying to bring their brand of theocracy to the United States.

"Muslims are more obvious about wanting to blow up the infidels, but Jews have their own sneaky ways of trying to gain influence and control. They live parasitically on host nations, enslaving them through debt.

"We live in a country where it's considered normal to be up to our eyeballs in debt. People go to work just so they can pay the moneylender the interest on their mortgage. In contrast, in the Philippines, people build their own homes, achieving a level of quality that's comparable to what we enjoy in the U.S., but a lot cheaper. If we had a similar practice, middle class millennials might actually have some prospect of owning a home in their lifetime.

"The Jews' cultural Marxism, by teaching that institutions such as patriarchy are exploitative, destroys the familial and community bonds that might have otherwise allowed people to help one another rather than relying on the moneylenders. Hollywood (which is controlled mostly by Jews, queers, and Jewish queers) produces films that glorify consumerism, encouraging people to seek fulfillment in spending beyond their means rather than in living a simple and thrifty. They get involved in politics and use their influence to drive the country further in debt.

"Deport the Jews to Israel, and let them fight for their survival against their Arab neighbors, without American help. That will keep them busy enough that they won't have time to try to undermine our country.

Nathan Larson calls for legalizing human cloning

14 December 2017 — Catlett, Virginia — Neoreactionary libertarian congressional candidate Nathan Larson called for legalizing human cloning.

"People claim that human cloning takes away from the dignity of life. On the contrary, it improves the dignity of life.

"When people are cloned, they have a shared identity, like members of the same family, race, religion, or country. Many people feel like they just want to belong and find their place in the world. Because we're all different, each of us has a unique struggle to figure out who we are and where we fit in.

"There's also a lot of angst that people experience at not being attractive enough, or smart enough, etc. What if we bred people to have these desirable characteristics, and then used cloning to mass produce those individuals who have a particularly good set of genes? It would improve the gene pool.

"There's a limited supply of attractive and intelligent women available for all the men who want them, because the only source of such high-quality women is families with high-quality genes who were able to produce a limited quantity of them. Therefore, the majority of men end up having to settle for less than the best, and produce children with those suboptimal mates. What if instead it were possible to buy the best, because it had been produced through a standard

"Some may say it's narcissistic to create clones of oneself, but who hasn't wished for a smaller version of themselves who could carry on the familial genetics and culture? In life, we're so often lonely because even on a planet of 7 billion people, it's hard to find one person to whom one can relate. Maybe the problem sometimes is that we're too different, rather than too much the same.

"The SJWs and misandrists and the cuckservatives will probably view using clones for sex as 'human trafficking' or a violation of the sanctity and dignity of human life or something. Girls were meant to be bought and sold as chattels, though (since women's whole purpose for existence is to serve men's pleasure), and I think having to remain incel is a violation of the sanctity and dignity of the incel's life, since incels are viewed as beneath all other humans."

Nathan Larson calls for legalizing insider trading

13 December 2017 — Catlett, Virginia — Neoreactionary libertarian congressional candidate Nathan Larson called for legalizing insider trading.

"Laws against insider trading prevent stock prices from adjusting to the levels they should be at, until the inside information becomes public," Larson noted. "If insiders were allowed to trade their stock freely, that would directly cause a change in the price, while also signaling to analysts that there may be a reason to want to buy or sell that stock.

"When insider trading is illegal, stocks end up being overpriced or underpriced relative to what the company is actually worth at any given moment in time, because the market does not have the information that those insider trades would have revealed. The outsider traders then end up buying or selling their stock for more than, or less than, what the price should be -- the exact problem that laws against insider trading were intended to eliminate. It prevents society's resources from efficiently flowing to those businesses where they could be best put to use."

Nathan Larson calls for executing all convicted felons

13 December 2017 — Catlett, Virginia — Neoreactionary libertarian congressional candidate Nathan Larson today called for executing all convicted felons.

"In the 2017 candidate forum, I called for a restitution-based system, in which prisoners could be released back into society by paying a parole bond with money earned through work or borrowed from friends, family, bondsmen, etc. This would give friends and family an incentive to support the prisoners' efforts to rehabilitate, since their money would be on the line, and would harness the power of capitalism to help the prisoners who represent the least risk of society to reenter the community (similar to how our bail bond system works today).

"I've since decided, it would probably make more sense to just go ahead and execute convicted felons. If a crime is too minor to be worth executing someone over, then we should probably reconsider whether it should be a felony.

"O.J. Simpson was ordered to pay $33.5 million in restitution to his victims' families. How will he pay it, given that his career is over? He'll never be on another football team or act in another film. The stigma of being a murderer (and now, robber) has pretty much ended his ability to function in society.

"In October 2016, I was fired from an accounting job after they found out I was a convicted felon. When I ran for office, politicians and commentators said that I should not have been allowed to run. The question arises, then, what am I supposed to do with my life, if I'm not allowed to be employed or hold any position of public trust? I spent half a year applying even for cashier and dishwasher jobs, and had no luck. Employers don't want to hire felons, because they worry about liability.

"Some felons are able to get jobs in blue-collar trades, working as plumbers, electricians, and so on. But I question whether people would be comfortable letting them in their house if they knew about their criminal past. Look at Jane Lakeman; she wasn't comfortable with my being at her doorstep asking for ballot access petition signatures. But, what else am I supposed to do? Society's answer is, sit at home and rely on family or welfare for support.

"The Nazis had a different answer for what should be done. They said that families should produce lots of children and then be willing to let go of those who prove weak or defective. The crippled, or criminal, etc., would simply be aborted or euthanized. Hitler wrote:

By leaving the process of procreation unchecked and by submitting the individual to the hardest preparatory tests in life, Nature selects the best from an abundance of single elements and stamps them as fit to live and carry on the conservation of the species. But man restricts the procreative faculty and strives obstinately to keep alive at any cost whatever has once been born. This correction of the Divine Will seems to him to be wise and humane, and he rejoices at having trumped Nature’s card in one game at least and thus proved that she is not entirely reliable. The dear little ape of an all-mighty father is delighted to see and hear that he has succeeded in effecting a numerical restriction; but he would be very displeased if told that this, his system, brings about a degeneration in personal quality.

For as soon as the procreative faculty is thwarted and the number of births diminished, the natural struggle for existence which allows only healthy and strong individuals to survive is replaced by a sheer craze to ‘save’ feeble and even diseased creatures at any cost. And thus the seeds are sown for a human progeny which will become more and more miserable from one generation to another, as long as Nature’s will is scorned.

"Exile is another possibility, but as we've seen with illegal immigrants, a lot of the exiled have a tendency to come back. If they wanted to be overseas, they probably would have already gone to live there rather than committing a crime in the United States. Execution is a clean and simple solution that ties up all loose ends. The wife doesn't even need to get a divorce; she can just become a widow, which has less stigma than being a divorcee."

Nathan Larson proposes allowing courts to render verdicts of "guilty but civilly disobedient"

13 December 2017 — Catlett, Virginia — Neoreactionary libertarian congressional candidate Nathan Larson proposed allowing courts to render verdicts of "guilty but civilly disobedient" in cases where the offense conduct meets certain criteria.

"University of Mississippi School of Law professor Matthew Hall wrote an essay describing in more detail how this could work, suggesting that the law allow courts to render a verdict of 'guilty but civilly disobedient' if conditions of conscientiousness, openness, and respect are met that distinguish the offense from other kinds of crime," Larson noted. "He notes that such a verdict might usefully have different implications with regard to collateral consequences of criminal conviction, such as those involving professional discipline within quasi-publicly-licensed groups, government contracting and hiring, security clearance and background check procedures, and private employment decisions.

"Hall argues that 'civil disobedience serves as a firebreak between legal protest and rebellion, while simultaneously providing a safety valve through which the profoundly disaffected can vent dissent without resorting to more extreme means. Civil disobedience broadly benefits society by liberating views divergent from the status quo — in much the same manner as free speech itself — and maximizing the prospect that a democratic society will correct its mistakes, or at least reexamine intensely divisive decisions in a manner that assures dissidents that they have been heard. Accordingly, in order for civil disobedience to succeed, it must retain a sufficiently distinct moral status such that society as a whole respects its place in the political order.'"

Nathan Larson marks the anniversary of his 11 December 2008 threat against the President, which led to his spending 46 months behind bars

12 December 2017 — Catlett, Virginia — Neoreactionary libertarian congressional candidate Nathan Larson noted the 9th anniversary of his 11 December 2008 threat against the President, which led to his spending 46 months behind bars.

"Libertarians are strong believers in natural rights," Larson noted. "Yet nature gives us nothing for free. We have to fight for our freedom just like we have to fight for everything else that we take from nature, whether it be land to live on, or food too eat, or anything else needed for survival. There is a constant struggle to fend off those who would take what belongs to us.

"Many libertarians have noticed that simply invoking their natural rights usually does not impress others. Telling a police officer that you have a natural right to smoke pot will not get him to rip up the citation and hand back the sack of cannabis.

"You have to actually be willing to fight, and make sacrifices, to keep others from walking all over you. That was what the threat against the President was about. I sacrificed 46 months of my life for the sake of making a long-term impact. Maybe I will not even live to see all of the results.

"The majority of the public will not understand it, and will not be inspired by it. That's fine. The goal is to inspire those who are discerning enough to see what it means.

"One of the weaknesses of the libertarian movement is its strong belief in pursuing one's self-interest, rather than in behaving altruistically. Libertarians tend to mistrust altruism, because they think it can be misguided. They say much evil has been done by those who thought they were acting for the benefit of all.

"This is true, but selfish behavior can also be shortsighted and harmful to the community. If one cares about one's posterity, one has to look beyond the horizons of the current generation, and plant seeds that won't blossom in one's own lifetime. Maybe a hurricane will come and blow down all those trees before they ever reach maturity. It's a risk we take, but we have to at least try, if we want there to be any hope for the future.

John Patrick Bedell

"It was noteworthy that libertarians had so very little to say about John Patrick Bedell who was, after all, one of them. Why did they not add him to their pantheon of heroes, for making the ultimate sacrifice? It's because they're used to thinking of liberty as something that's won by persuasion and by teaching, rather than by laying down one's life. They don't understand that making a personal sacrifice through civil disobedience can also a teaching moment, no less than when one is drawing supply and demand curves on the blackboard.

"What makes a sacrifice 'heroic' is when the results will not come in your lifetime. When you're expecting to get your reward before you die, then it's more of an investment. Investments are commonplace; great sacrifices, less so. Every movement has its heroes that it looks up to as an example of strength and vision. As Communcel wrote about Elliot Rodger:

The key component of myths and legends is that they feature someone doing something superhuman - no one wants to hear about someone doing something anyone could do on a random Tuesday. ER is deified because his actions were godlike and transcendental.

"The masses have a simple explanation for the mythical, legendary, superhuman, godlike, and transcendental -- viz., mental illness. It gives them an easy excuse for why they don't follow the example they see before them -- viz., they are healthy and those few who act differently than them are not. Not everyone is so easily deceived, though. It's those few that I want to reach, just as I was inspired by those men, like Henry David Thoreau, who came before me. Thoreau writes:

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison. The proper place to-day, the only place which Massachusetts has provided for her freer and less desponding spirits, is in her prisons, to be put out and locked out of the State by her own act, as they have already put themselves out by their principles. It is there that the fugitive slave, and the Mexican prisoner on parole, and the Indian come to plead the wrongs of his race, should find them; on that separate, but more free and honorable ground, where the State places those who are not with her but against her,—the only house in a slave-state in which a free man can abide with honor. If any think that their influence would be lost there, and their voices no longer afflict the ear of the State, that they would not be as an enemy within its walls, they do not know by how much truth is stronger than error, nor how much more eloquently and effectively he can combat injustice who has experienced a little in his own person. Cast your whole vote, not a strip of paper merely, but your whole influence. A minority is powerless while it conforms to the majority; it is not even a minority then; but it is irresistible when it clogs by its whole weight. If the alternative is to keep all just men in prison, or give up war and slavery, the State will not hesitate which to choose.

"Those activists who do something hard make more of an impression than those who do something easy. Maybe on most people, they don't make a good impression, because most people can't fathom why someone would want to act in a way that doesn't produce any obvious benefit. The nature of activism, though, is that the benefits are often speculative. It's high risk. You work hard and suffer without any guarantee of getting the desired results, in this lifetime or ever.

"But we know this much -- it's a show of strength when you demonstrate that you're willing to endure hardship for what you believe. If you would go through all that, what else might you be willing to do? Look at someone like Dylann Roof, who gave up his freedom for what he believed. People say it was counterproductive, because now people feel like they can't fly the Confederate flag anymore. I think it gave flying the Confederate flag more meaning, because now the only people willing to do it are those hardcore enough to disregard society's disapproval of it. What's commonly called the Confederate flag is actually a battle flag, so it's fitting that now the only ones who fly it are those with enough courage in their convictions to buck society's expectations.

"Winning a fight requires fighting smart, but it also requires having the guts and determination to fight at all. We should not give up our liberty or our existence without a fight, as long as there's any hope left."

Nathan Larson proposes turning 74 coastal cities and towns into neocameralist free ports

12 December 2017 — Catlett, Virginia — Neoreactionary libertarian congressional candidate Nathan Larson proposed turning 74 coastal cities and towns into neocameralist free ports.

"To revitalize the economy, we need to set aside all of our coastal cities as special economic zones to be governed by joint-stock companies, independent of the state and federal governments," Larson noted. "These freeports can serve as laboratories of corporatocracy, experimenting with novel social and economic policies and competing with one another to attract industry and residents." The 74 cities would be:

On the Atlantic coast: Atlantic Beach, Baltimore, Bangor, Bath, Bayonne, Boston, Brunswick, Camden, Charleston, Chester, Elizabeth, Fort Lauderdale, Gloucester, Jacksonville Beach, Jacksonville, Jersey City, Machias, Marblehead, Miami, Nantucket, Neptune Beach, New Bedford, New Haven, New York City, Newark, Norfolk, Paulsboro, Perth Amboy, Philadelphia, Portland, Providence, Riviera Beach, Salem, Salisbury, Savannah, West Palm Beach, Wilmington, Delaware, and Wilmington, North Carolina.

On the Gulf Coast: Corpus Christi, Galveston, Gulfport, Houston, Intracoastal City, Key West, Mobile, New Orleans, Panama City, Pensacola, Port Arthur, Port Fourchon, Port of Panama City, Port of St. Petersburg, St. Petersburg, and Tampa.

On the West Coast: Anchorage, Eureka, Juneau, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Nome, Oakland, Oxnard, Port Hueneme, Portland, Richmond, San Francisco, Santa Barbara, and Ventura.

In Hawaii: Honolulu, Kawaihae, and Port Allen.

In Puerto Rico: Mayagüez, Ponce, and San Juan.

Nathan Larson proposes military conquest of Mexico, Guatemala, Belize, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and Panama

11 December 2017 — Catlett, Virginia — Neoreactionary libertarian congressional candidate Nathan Larson proposed sending U.S. military forces to annex Mexico and Central America in their entirety.

"The Mexico–United States border is 1,951 miles long," Larson noted. "Building a wall for border security is apparently impracticable, without risking that the U.S. Government would become the fifth Donald Trump-run organization to have to file for bankruptcy. At any rate, that kind of barrier would cut the United States off from a lot of cheap labor and sexy Latinas. We should just go ahead and send troops across the Rio Grande to take all that territory, so that our new southern border will be the much more easily defensible 139-mile long Colombia–Panama border, which includes the Darién Gap, a break in the Pan-American Highway consisting of a large swath of nearby impassable swampland and forest.

"A lot of those countries are banana republics that could be better governed by whites. The norteamericanos have been intervening in their politics for a long time there anyway, for the benefit of corporations like the United Fruit Company. We should oust the kleptocratic regimes and create a stable business environment for American companies to invest in building first-rate infrastructure. America also has a lot of frustrated, Norman Bates-style incels who could benefit from some forcible intimacy with las señoritas bonitas (soon to be las señoras bonitas after we unleash our sex-deprived hordes to seize the ones they want). The conquistadors got their turn in Latin America; now it's time for us whites to have our fun. Throughout history, it has always been customary for the conquerors to celebrate victory between the legs of the local women, and this will be no exception.

"We already took the northern part of Mexico, so we might as well take the southern part as well. It's been a dream of the Central American countries to unify into one confederation, and conquest is how we can help them make that a reality. Together, Mexico and Central America will also give us 960,630 additional square miles of lebensraum.

"At that point, though, we should, like a good Risk player, hold off on attacking South America, and instead take some time to fortify our position, lest we overextend ourselves. But if there should come a day when our American Empire rules the entire western hemisphere, then our borders will at last be fully secured."

Nathan Larson proposes U.S. anschluss with Canada

11 December 2017 — Catlett, Virginia — Neoreactionary libertarian congressional candidate Nathan Larson proposed merging Canada into the United States.

"Our neighbors to the north have been filling our vending machines with their Canadian quarters long enough," Larson declared. "They probably made their quarters the exact same size as ours, just so it would be easier for them to rip us off. Since they apparently want to use the same currency throughout white North America, we should go ahead and merge the two countries. This will add 3,855,000 million square miles of lebensraum to our country."

Nathan Larson proposes subjugating or getting rid of America's white trash

9 December 2017 — Catlett, Virginia — Neoreactionary libertarian congressional candidate Nathan Larson proposed subjugating or getting rid of America's white trash.

"Earlier, I proposed expelling or shoahing all the blacks and Jews, enslaving all the women, and subjugating the Latinos and Asians under a white ruling class. However, this still doesn't address the fact that there are also a lot of low-quality whites around. The presence of these individuals of substandard intelligence, living on welfare in their dilapidated trailers and driving around in beat-up pickup trucks listening to country music, is a blight on our land. To be a full member of the volk, it's not enough to be racist, sexist, and antisemitic. A certain level of intellect and work ethic is also required of those who aspire to serve in the ruling class of the coming reich.

"Currently, the way the country is set up, each white trash individual gets counted in the Census as equivalent to a higher-quality white, and therefore those white trash states get allocated a lot of Congressmen and electoral votes. This has a detrimental effect on American politics. Of course, the higher-quality whites still are able to have a disproportionate influence through their greater wealth, which gives them a greater ability to fund campaigns. But this probably isn't enough to offset the sheer number of low-quality whites.

"One advantage we have, though, is that although there are laws banning discrimination based on race or sex, there is no law forbidding discrimination based on an individual's white trash status. White trash can be excluded from neighborhoods and workplaces by noting their white trash characteristics during the interview process or through other screening methods, such as, for example, checking references, credit scores, etc. For this reason, white trash is usually not a huge problem, except that they often have to be supported through welfare.

"What we could do, is set a intelligence threshold of, say, 100 IQ, and kick everyone out of the country who falls below that standard. But, if we're going to have a non-race-based criterion like that, one might ask, why not just apply it across the board to all races? Why not allow, for example, the intelligent and well-socialized blacks (IWSBs), and the Latinos who work productively at blue-collar trades rather than joining criminal gangs, to be free citizens if they can meet the intelligence requirement?

"The reason is that non-whites just tend to have defective personalities relative to whites. Even if an individual member of a race is okay, he still will tend to have solidarity with those members of his race who are less acceptable. A lot of Latinos, for instance, are humble, honest, friendly, helpful, etc.; yet members of their race also have a nasty tendency to get involved in street gangs during their youth. So we have to keep an eye on that and guard against it, perhaps by keeping them in an enslaved status.

"At the same time, if we're going to be calling upon whites to lead the other races, then we need to make sure that we exclude the incompetent whites from the ruling class. Therefore, we need to get rid of all this white trash, by shooting them in the head, expelling them to Ireland or Scotland or Australia, or conscripting them as cannon fodder to reconquer and resettle Rhodesia, or something. Either that, or we need to treat areas like Georgia as colonial territories, where the white trash is ruled over by the superior whites in the same way that blacks would be ruled over when they're called upon to slave away in the Congolese diamond mines.

"One could easily argue, 'No wonder the Confederacy fell to the Union. How is white trash going to defend itself and assert its independence from wealthier, smarter, more heavily industrialized whites? They can't, and they didn't. It's like how the Japanese fell to the U.S. in World War II, or the Mexicans fell to the U.S. in the Mexican-American War, or the Filipinos fell to the U.S. in the Philippine-American War. The non-white races can't beat the whites, and the inferior whites can't beat the superior whites. For neo-Confederates to brag about their fallen heroes is like blacks bragging about how they wuz kangz.'

"But what we have to pay attention to is how a country does after the war is over. Germany and Japan lost World War II, yet rebuilt and won the peace. Both are currently in the Group of Eight industrialized democracies. As Hitler wrote, 'A military defeat is not the tombstone of national life.'

"The south lost the American Civil War, but states like Texas, Georgia, and South Carolina are doing well economically. So who really got the last laugh? One might conclude, 'Maybe they're not such white trash after all; maybe the northern whites who thought they were smart, actually outsmarted themselves when it came to coming up with economic policies.'

"But really, these are just manifestations of one of the advantages of keeping states like those around, that don't participate in the latest economic and social experiments. One can use them as control groups when researching what works and what doesn't. Basically, we use them as laboratory rats.

"I would almost say, 'We may want to consider seizing any white trash families' daughters who show signs of intelligence, and giving them to the higher-class whites to raise in a more cultured environment that can prepare them for marriage to a high-quality white man. This would be similar to the German program of Lebensborn. This type of program basically already exists in America, in that Child Protective Services finds various pretexts for taking kids away from poverty-stricken families to give to the wealthy. If carried to its logical conclusion, it would probably be an effective way of eradicating white trash, since they can't reproduce without any girls around.'

"Part of the problem with that idea is that if 'white trash' is defined as low-intelligence, then intelligent girls are, by definition, not white trash. Yet those would be the only girls worth salvaging from those families. On the other hand, 'white trash' can't necessarily be defined as 'low-income' either, because the poor are not not necessarily inferior to the rich. The poor may simply be thriftier, so that they don't require as high an income to have an acceptable quality of life. The other issue is that, all else equal, biological families tend to love their kids more than adoptive families do.

"Hitler implemented Aktion T4 to eliminate physical and mental defectives. For political reasons, he had to halt this program. But perhaps he didn't go far enough in his agenda to improve the race. It's up to us to complete that unfinished work.

"The job of a politician is to be like Light Yagami and use the statute book as a Death Note by which to deal with not only the evil, but also the stupid and lazy."

Nathan Larson proposes patriarchal solution to Congressional "sexual harassment" incidents

8 December 2017 — Catlett, Virginia — Neoreactionary libertarian congressional candidate Nathan Larson proposed a solution today to the issue of Congressional "sexual harassment" incidents.

"Barbara Comstock and others have complained about Congressmen hitting on the young ladies who work as interns and pages on Capitol Hill. Those girls should be at home making sandwiches, where they won't receive lewd talk or groping from anyone but their husbands. The root of a lot of problems in this country, including the low birth rate among whites, is that women are being encouraged to go to school and enter the workplace rather than start families during their years of youthful beauty and fertility.

"If people want to argue that those girls are too intelligent to spend their time sitting home having babies and taking care of the home, I would argue the opposite -- that those high-quality girls, who are both highly smart and attractive, are exactly the ones who should be devoting their teens and early twenties to bearing children with superior genetics, so that our species can have a brighter future. That's the reason men are risking their careers to 'harass' them in the workplace -- they see that those girls have traits that would be highly desirable to have in their offspring, and they have a strong natural urge to approach them and try to have sex with them.

"Let nature run its course; let men wife up these girls while they're in their prime. Let them mark these girls with a ring (and with a pregnant belly) as their territory, so that other men will know to leave them alone.

"One of the reasons why men are behaving in such a sexually predatory way these days is that they realize, if they don't defile a young woman, someone else will. The end result will be the same, so why not be the one to take what's available? It's like if you see a $5 bill on the ground in a public place. You could leave it there, in hopes the rightful owner will notice he dropped it and come back to retrieve it. But more likely, someone else will see it and take it. Since the end result will be the same, you might as well be the one to have the benefit, because you found it first.

"It would be eugenic to allow high-status men to add young girls to their harems rather than being limited to one aging, possibly infertile wife during the years when their success is peaking. Congressman Trent Franks supposedly offered an aide $5 million to bear his child. In times past, it would have been like a Disney fairy tale fantasy for a wealthy and powerful man to tell an office girl, 'Let me take you away from all this and give you a better life.' But modern women have gotten so caught up in wanting to have 'important' responsibilities and fancy job titles that they won't let men take care of them anymore the way they used to. What could be more important, and more joyful, than bringing new life into the world?

"There's no need for a Congressman's colleagues to pressure him to resign just because he was trying to have sex with his staff members. If those office romances don't interfere with getting work done, then there's no problem. If, on the other hand, the way he treats his staff gets in the way of serving constituents' effectively, then they can always vote him out. That is a matter to be settled through elections, not ethics investigations.

"Most of what goes on in Washington is based on some kind of quid pro quo or personal relationship. Help a politician get elected, and you may get rewarded with a cabinet position, for instance. Hillary Clinton ended up as Secretary of State in large part due to her marriage to Bill Clinton serving as a way for her to gain political connections. Marriage is a sexual relationship, which means that she gained power partly by sleeping her way to the top. But there's nothing unusual about that; a lot of political appointments come about because someone was friends with someone, or brother-in-law to someone, etc. Careers also stagnate or progress based in large part on how well-liked one is, rather than how good one's work is. Engaging in social activities like golf or cracking open a cold one with the boys after work is one way of becoming well-liked."

Nathan Larson calls for legalizing all drugs

7 December 2017 — Catlett, Virginia — Neoreactionary libertarian congressional candidate Nathan Larson today called for legalizing all drugs.

"I don't know about anyone else, but I'm getting tired of having to go all the way down to DC and pay $50 for a baseball cap just so I can get a free gift of cannabis with it," Larson noted. "Let's end prohibition once and for all, so we don't have to deal with all this inconvenience.

"The politicians need to learn to stand up to the prosecutors, police chiefs, and so on who appear before legislative panels to oppose every legalization proposal that comes up. These guys obviously have a conflict of interest. Once we get rid of laws against consensual 'vices' like drugs, child pornography, etc., the police won't be able to spend all their time setting up stings. They'll have to actually go out and try to solve real crimes like murder, arson, etc. Investigating those cases is a lot more work for them, which is why they would prefer that vices continue to be outlawed. As former Richmond police chief Jerry Oliver wrote:

Drug violations are generally consensual. In almost every case, willing buyers and willing sellers participate secretly in this highly profitable criminalized industry.

So in order for police - federal or otherwise - to do their jobs they must snoop, spy, sniff, sneak, and covertly surveil in order to snag drug quantities, drug traffickers, or drug users. Most of the snooping, sneaking, and snagging is done primarily through the use of informants - people who use their own criminal status or position to gain some benefit from the police by trading information.

It is a dangerous, dirty business, chock full of espionage, deceit, lies, and double-crosses. I am concerned about what this side of the police business is doing to other sides of our profession ethically and morally.

We need only to look at the LAPD's current Rampart scandal for a salient example. We put our integrity, our hard-earned community trust, and our credibility at risk when police stoop to snooping on fellow Americans over drugs.

"Because of the war on drugs, young people who otherwise would have run into no problems with the police end up hating the police and the government in general. John Patrick Bedell was arrested for growing pot, said and ended up committing suicide by cop by shooting two Pentagon security guards.

"The young people who bear the brunt of the war on drugs see the hypocrisy in how the government keeps alcohol and tobacco legal yet bans drugs like cannabis that has never killed anyone. Members of the older generation look like fools or liars when they put forth anti-cannabis propaganda, which provokes resentment and disrespect. Cannabis legalization is correlated with lower rates of hard drug use; lives will be saved when people have an incentive to switch to pot.

"The drug war erodes many of our civil liberties, including our Fourth Amendment privilege against unreasonable searches and seizures (such as roadside cavity searches).

"All in all, the war on drugs has been a disaster and must end. It is natural for people, especially in the younger generation, to want to experiment with mind-altering substances. Why not cultivate an environment in which they can do so without needing to lie and hide what they're up to? Not every drug is addictive, and not everyone who uses even a potentially addictive drug will get addicted. But those young people who do get hooked, and die because of it, are improving the gene pool anyway through natural selection, so this ends up being beneficial to society.

"This is why there may be a good argument to be made that there should be no age restrictions on drug possession. If young people are able to die from drug use before they reproduce, that may be more beneficial to society, because it tends to eliminate from the population those ideas or genetic traits that would cause people to harm themselves with drugs."

Nathan Larson advocates seizing Afghani, Iraqi women as spoils of war

6 December 2017 — Catlett, Virginia — Neoreactionary libertarian congressional candidate Nathan Larson today noted the potential uses of sexual enslavement as a counterterrorism strategy.

"Donald Trump said that we should seize the oil fields of middle eastern areas controlled by Islamic extremist groups. Why only their oil? Why not their women too?

"When we militarily intervene in countries like Afghanistan or Iraq where a lot of insurgency and terrorism are expected, we should take all of their nubile women and bring them home to the U.S., to serve as sex slaves and domestic servants for white men," Larson proposed. "By depriving the enemy of those women who could have given birth to the next generation of terrorists, we will be able to wear the enemy down by attrition. We can also put some of those girls in overseas brothels to serve as comfort women for American soldiers, as a morale booster for them during their time away from their families.

"Afghanistan and Iraq each have six million women in the age range of 0-14. If we assume that the U.S. could have made $1,000 per girl by auctioning them off to white men wanting young foreign brides, housekeepers, babysitters, etc., that's twelve billion dollars that could have helped pay off the debts from the Afghanistan War and Iraq War.

"Why are we bothering to go into other countries if we're not going to take the opportunity to grab all of their resources, including every woman who passes the boner test? We have socially awkward adolescent white boys in the U.S. experiencing extreme frustration and anguish at not being able to get any teenage pussy, while meanwhile overseas, those who would wish to do our country harm are able to enjoy the benefit of sex with these young girls, and train up their offspring to wage jihad against us.

"There's always the question, what do you buy the son who already has an XBox and PlayStation? Under this new policy of plundering foreign lands for attractive women, parents would be able offer their adolescent son an Afghan or Iraqi girl as a sexual playmate. They could buy her the night before, have her curl up under the Christmas tree, and then in the morning, their son could play dumb by asking, 'Hmm, what could this possibly be?' and start ripping her burqa to shreds to see what's underneath.

"According to the FBI, Islamist cleric Anwar al-Awlaki was having sex with American prostitutes. If jihadists are going to be having sex with our women, I think it's only fair that we have sex with theirs. Any other foreign policy would be cuckservative.

"Maybe there are some other countries that could use some American-style freedom as well. Unfortunately, Russia is probably too well-defended at this point, which is a pity because there are some sexy Russian girls. But there was a point in history when those girls could have been ours, had we made the proper geopolitical decision. After World War II, the U.S. should've told Stalin, 'Okay, give us all your hot Russian girls or we're going to bomb your country into oblivion with these nuclear weapons we just developed.' They would've had no choice but to surrender, and with the help of those Russian girls, the American baby boom would've been more like a population explosion.

"If you believe the Soviet Census (1937), the Soviets at that time had roughly the same population reported in the 1940 United States Census. Therefore, if we had kidnapped and imported all their women of childbearing age, each American man could have had a second wife. Our population would've skyrocketed, while the Soviets' would have collapsed, and we would have won the Cold War when their population became too old and feeble to sustain itself, much less wage war against us.

"Please, let's not make that mistake again. Let's at least get our money's worth, if we're going to invade other countries. Let's get some teenage pussy out of the deal, so that all those soldiers won't have died for nothing. Then on Memorial Day, you can pat the pregnant belly of your middle eastern wife and truly have a reason to be thankful for those who made the ultimate sacrifice. They may not have been fighting for our freedom, but at least they fought so that we could have some more young, tight pussies to slide into."

Nathan Larson calls for a constitutional amendment legalizing assisted suicide

6 December 2017 — Catlett, Virginia — Neoreactionary libertarian congressional candidate Nathan Larson advocated passing a constitutional amendment stating simply, "The right to assisted suicide shall not be infringed for any reason, including conviction of crime or adjudication of mental incompetence."

"Society has a lot of misfits who can't find a place for themselves that's productive enough to offset the costs of their existence," Larson noted. "Some of them have felony convictions, others are mentally disturbed, and some are a mix of both.

"There's also a high rate of failed suicide attempts. Some of the people who are incompetent at the rest of life are also incompetent at killing themselves.

"As a neoreactionary-leaning libertarian, I don't necessarily agree that the concept of human rights is useful. It seems like many declarations of rights have been promulgated and then trampled upon, even by people calling themselves 'libertarian.' But I agree with Patri Friedman's sentiment that it would be expedient to behave as though free exit were a universal human right."

Nathan Larson calls for a free market solution to the "Bake the Cake" controversy

5 December 2017 — Catlett, Virginia — Neoreactionary libertarian congressional candidate Nathan Larson today took the side of the plaintiffs in the U.S. Supreme Court case, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission.

"Employers, landlords, etc. should be free to discriminate not only against non-whites but also against non-heterosexuals," Larson stated. "They have a right to do as they wish with their property, including deny the use of it to those they don't want hanging around. I agree with the sentiment expressed by Greg Weiner, 'Surely no one believes same-sex couples actually want the services of a baker they consider a bigot. The object of the case is not to secure Masterpiece Cakeshop’s services. It is to dragoon its owner, Jack C. Phillips, into compliance with their views.'

"As science advances, perhaps we will get a better sense of whether homosexuality is a bug to be eradicated, or a feature to be embraced as beneficial. On the one hand, lesbians have a low rate of AIDS transmission; and exclusively gay men, by not having sex with women, leave more women available for heterosexual men. On the other hand, there are high sexually transmitted disease rates among gay men and there is a high rate of domestic violence in families led by gay couples."

Nathan Larson calls for legalization of child pornography

5 December 2017 — Catlett, Virginia — Neoreactionary libertarian congressional candidate Nathan Larson explained today his reasoning for advocating the repeal of laws against child pornography.

"A 2012 U.S. Sentencing Commission study found that 89.9 percent of those convicted of child pornography possession are white," Larson noted. "The 2010 U.S. Census reported only 72 percent of Americans are white. Therefore, we can conclude that child pornography laws disproportionately target whites.

"Whites could have many legitimate reasons for possessing child pornography. A Guttmacher Institute study found that 44 percent of 15-19-year-old girls have had sexual intercourse. Therefore, a white man who wants an undefiled bride might choose a woman younger than 15 to become the mother of his child. Younger women are also likely to be more fertile and have healthier babies with fewer birth defects.

"But 18 U.S.C. § 2256 criminalizes possessing any images of girls under 18 engaging in sexually explicit conduct. So if the young married couple is having fun by taking sexy photos of each other, they could be prosecuted and punished as sex offenders. Meanwhile, a black man who defiles an 18-year-old white girl goes free, because our feminist-influenced society believes that adult women have a right to make their own decisions.

"Heterosexual men often prefer women who are just beginning to become fertile, because they are less likely to have been defiled, and they have more years of beauty, health, and fertility ahead of them. Some men take that a step further, preferring girls who have not even reached their fertile years yet. It seems like an understandable desire, since that gives a man more years to mold a girl into the woman he wants her to be, while her personality is still developing. Perhaps the more of her formative years they spend together, the more of a bond that will develop between them, in much the same way that friendships that develop during childhood often last for life.

"Although it is true that prepubescent girls are not capable of reproduction, they can still engage in a lot of the same non-reproductive sex acts that many adult married couples enjoy, such as oral and anal sex. The psychology of a little girl is also fairly similar to the psychology of an adult woman, so the relationship dynamics are pretty similar. Girls of all ages use charm to win men's favor so they can get attention, provision, and protection.

"To those fathers who say, 'If you touch my little girl, I'll kill you,' I would say, 'If you think your girl is not ready for sex till she's older, it is totally your prerogative to keep her at home and save her virginity for when you marry her off at whatever age you think is appropriate.' I definitely am a strong believer in the right of fathers to make those sorts of decisions in accordance with their own beliefs about what is best for their daughter. For that reason, I also think that if some fathers want to make a different decision, and marry their daughter off earlier, that too is their right.

Kenneth Freeman

"One particular case that comes to my mind is that of Kenneth Freeman. He had oral and anal sex with his 10-year-old daughter Vicky, and then shared the footage of their intimate moments together via the Internet, so others could admire her beauty and skill. He ended up getting 50 years in prison for that.

"One voice of reason, Gregory Hoffman, wrote to Freeman's daughter, 'I loved and adored those videos very much. He jus [sic] wanted to show the world how gorgeous u really were. Is that such a crime??' He got 25 years in federal prison and was ordered to pay Vicky $150,000 in restitution.

"To me, that seems like an injustice. Freeman was, after all, the patriarch of his family. Although his wife gave birth to his daughter, he was the one who made that possible by providing for her and impregnating her. He also nurtured his daughter over the years. And so, if he then wanted his daughter's body for himself, it was his prerogative to take her. If you grow a garden in your backyard, it's your right to choose whether you want to eat the tomatoes yourself or give them away to friends; and in Ken's case, he decided to enjoy that fruit himself. If other men think it's better for a father not to do that, then they are welcome to make a different decision for their own daughter. They can even ostracize and shame Kenneth Freeman if they want.

"But they shouldn't forcibly interfere with another man's family. If having an incestuous father-daughter relationship is a bad idea, then natural selection will, over time, weed out the tendency to engage in it. Apparently, that hasn't happened yet, because father-daughter incest is a fairly common male fantasy.

"I personally think, though, that a desire for father-daughter incest makes sense in a lot of ways. A girl from another family is more of an unknown quantity. A girl you've raised all your life, you know more about. She shares the same familial culture, having been raised in it, so there aren't the typical arguments over, 'This is what my family taught me was the proper way to do things.' And a daughter has a lot of the same traits as her mother, which would tend to be a plus, given that the father was presumably attracted to the mother. The mother, though, perhaps is getting older and her looks are fading, while the daughter is still fresh and young.

"I suspect, too, that some fathers who seem hypercritical of their daughters' suitors probably are that way because they secretly want to have sex with their daughters themselves, and can't stand to give them away to another man. One might as well simply allow those dads to have what they want. They've earned it.

"Given that there's a natural affinity between father and daughter, and that they have spent all those years bonding together, for them to then want to get physical together to me seem more in accordance with the romantic ideal of love than marrying a relative stranger. And if he feels proud of his daughter and wants to show off what he gets to enjoy by sharing photos of their time together, why not? It gives other men inspiration as they think of what they can have if they put in the work needed to build a family.

"And of course, some men who have beautiful daughters will want to brag to the world about their creations and what joyous sexual experiences they get to partake of with them, hence child pornography. For them, it's not enough to indulge in great sex with a young girl in private; they want to capture for future generations the glory of her body in its youthful prime, and how she could expertly and lovingly use it to serve his (exquisite) pleasure. It's similar to how Donald Trump enjoys patting his daughter's hips on national television in an affectionate way that borders on the proprietary, and making comments to the press about what he would like to do with a woman like her.

"If whites are more avid consumers of child pornography than other races, that to me suggests that perhaps child pornography is a form of high culture, like opera or classical music, that only those with discerning tastes enjoy. Some child porn connoisseurs make a hobby of collecting it as though it were fine wine. The attack on child pornography, therefore, would seem to be an attack on the white race and its culture. Accordingly, those whites who have chosen to work for the FBI and HSI-ICE task forces that arrest so many of their fellow whites for child porn offenses should be hanged from lampposts as race traitors."

Nathan Larson calls for new policy on migration and importation of certain persons

4 December 2017 — Catlett, Virginia — Neoreactionary libertarian congressional candidate Nathan Larson called today for a new policy on migration and importation of certain persons.

"We should completely throw open the borders to white men from all over the world," Larson argued. "As long as they pass security and medical checks, they should be able to become full citizens.

"We should also allow American companies and white men to import women and non-white men as slaves. For example, men might buy wives from overseas to add to their harems. Or they might import servants to work around the house, or for their businesses. Fruit companies and restaurants might bring in Mexicans to work in their fields and clean toilets, respectively, and tech companies might import Asians to develop software. Brothels might import women to work as prostitutes.

"All daughters born to any race should, in accordance with the principle of partus sequitur ventrem, become the property of whoever owns the mother. So, for example, the daughter of a pureblooded white married couple would belong to her father until he gave her away or sold her to another man, as this assures a patriarchal family structure. The daughter of a non-white girl would belong to her slaveowner.

"Essentially, non-whites would be treated by the law as livestock or exotic pets.

"The question then arises, how do we tell the difference between white and non-white children? A number of tests are available, such as matrilineality, the one-drop rule, the Brown Paper Bag Test, or the pencil test. Science can perhaps help us determine what test would make the most sense to use.

"Some white nationalists want to build a wall and keep Hispanics out of the country altogether. But like Augustus Sol Invictus, I personally find Latinas a little too alluring to just give up on the possibility of ever having one around the house. Their curves are awesome and their dance moves are hot. Even their little girls are muy sexy. They just need to all be reduced to the status of sex slaves and domestic servants, the lowest of the low, beneath the white wife of the white man, serving as menial helpers and concubines to satisfy his desires for that sweet, sweet, sw-sw-sw-sweet Latin booty. Some of them might also know how to make nachos, burritos, gorditas, chalupas, etc., which would come in handy during those hours when Taco Bell is closed.

"By adopting a policy that allows unlimited numbers of foreigners to enter the country, but relegates the women and non-whites to slave status, we recognize the merits of libertarian arguments that open borders help leverage comparative advantage to make our economy more efficient, while also strengthening the patriarchy and addressing the concerns of those who worry about the country being 'taken over' by non-white immigrants. Slaves would not be in a position to take over, since they would not even own their own bodies.

"Some might argue that importing women to turn them into prostitutes would take away from their dignity. But when women are allowed to run feral, they tend to degrade themselves anyway by becoming sluts, to the point that these days, it's becoming harder and harder for a man to find an undefiled woman to become the mother of his child. It would be better to regulate women's behavior, separating those women whose role is to satisfy the cravings of many men from those women who are made to be pure and faithful to one man only.

"Anyway, just as animals exist for humans to eat, women exist to serve men's pleasure as well, so if men want to make money off of selling a woman's body to 20 different customers every night, that's their prerogative. The enjoyment men get from having sex with those prostitutes, and the motivation that helps give them to work hard to improve our world as civilization-builders, probably far outweighs the inconvenience to the woman who is forced into prostitution. Women are a dime a dozen; we can always make more of them, so devoting a few to that purpose is no big deal in the big scheme of things. If you feel bad for those sex slaves, think of the poor men who, without them, would have to suffer for lack of any female companionship at all.

"When we consider what men are willing to pay, per hour, for sex with an attractive young woman, compared to what they are willing to pay for just about any other service she could offer, it is clear that the most utility is provided by sex. Thus, we can conclude that, by one important metric at least, sex is a higher calling for women than, say, office work. If there is any surplus of women beyond what are needed for men to have all the harems they want, those extra women can be put to work as hookers and then hit in the head with a captive bolt pistol and sent to the farm as pig food when their looks start to fade. This recycling of prostitutes' carcasses will help create jobs in the agricultural sector.

"My proposals are, in some respects, similar to the policies we have now. As it is now, those who come over on H-1B visas or H-2B visas are stuck working for a particular employer if they don't want to get deported back to their home country. Likewise, mail order brides have to get the cooperation of their husbands during the process of getting a CR-1 visa, or getting an adjustment of status if they came in under a K-1 visa, which probably means they will need to have sex with him if they want to stay in his good graces. So in a sense, we already have a system of forced labor and forced sex. But, before we can bring in larger numbers of immigrants, we need to take away even more of their rights by reducing them to chattel slavery, so that white supremacy won't be challenged by their presence.

"By the way, it's important, if we're going to implement this policy, that we also reduce white women to chattel slavery. Otherwise, white men will tend to prefer non-white women, since their slave status will make them easier to control. Patriarchy, white supremacy, and importation of foreign slaves all go hand-in-hand; they are mutually supporting policies that help build a stronger and more prosperous country for the benefit of the white man."

Nathan Larson clarifies his views on Jews, and his relationship (or lack thereof) to the Libertarian Party

1 December 2017 — Catlett, Virginia — Neoreactionary libertarian congressional candidate Nathan Larson gave a statement today on where things stand with regard to him and the Jews and the Libertarian Party.

"I only provisionally hate the Jews," Larson explained. "If anyone were to give a good reason not to hate them, I would cheerfully withdraw my hate, without any harm having been done, since I'm not yet in power.

"The Libertarians and other normies have mostly ostracized me at this point, so I don't really have a lot of friends other than fashy goys who hate on Jews. Therefore, to fit in and be cool, I hate on Jews too. But if someone were to refute all the arguments against Jews, then I would have to tell my peeps, 'Hey bros, you're wrong about this antisemitic stuff.' And then maybe they would ostracize me too, but whatever. It wouldn't be the first time I've been politically homeless.

"This campaign places the Jew on trial by the inquisitorial system, in which over the next several months, I investigate the facts of the case to determine the truth. If the Jews argue they have broken no laws, that is no defense, any more than it was when the Nazis were prosecuted during the Nuremberg trials or the trial of Adolf Eichmann. Based on my conclusions with regard to the Jewish question, I will make any alterations to my platform I deem appropriate.

"I begin with a presumption of guilt, i.e., I declare the Jews deserving of death unless proven otherwise. This is similar to how courts will often hold defendants in pretrial detention for the safety of the public even before they have been convicted of anything. This is based on preliminary evidence of dangerousness, before the final verdict of guilty or not guilty has been rendered. The defendant is only released if he is ultimately acquitted, or if he is sentenced to a sentence other than death and finishes serving it.

"There is one other important difference, though, between this trial and a typical American criminal trial. The standard of evidence is not what it would be if we were trying a white man. Rather, it's more like the zookeepers' decision of whether to shoot Harambe. The boy's life was considered of higher importance than the gorilla's life, so he was shot even though there was uncertainty about what he was going to do. Why was the boy's life considered more important? Because he was of the same species as those making the decision. (Had it been gorillas making the decision, they might would have viewed a gorilla's life as more important than a human's.)

"In this case, all else equal, the Jews' lives are considered less important than whites', because it is whites making the decision about whether Jews live or die. Jews would probably treat us the same way, if they were in our place. It is simply the law of self-preservation. Each race does what is in its own best interest, and prefers to err on the side of safety when it perceives its existence may be on the line.

"Of course, some Jews would argue that for whites to investigate whether Jews are responsible for their problems is a bit like O.J. Simpson searching for the real killers of his wife. But isn't that exactly the kind of comparison that people who are guilty would make, to try to discredit those who are looking for the truth?

"Wherever Jews are found, including in the Libertarian movement, they tend to have a pro-Jew and anti-Hitler bias in their speeches and writings. That's only natural, but we goyim have to watch out for it and take it all with a grain of salt. Many injustices have been perpetrated on members of our race too, and it would be simplistic to say that Hitler was nothing more nor less than an incarnation of evil.

"Libertarians thought that by purging me from their party, they could protect their reputation. But they can't remove the historical associations between me and the Libertarian Party with a wave of their magic expulsion wand. The fact remains that even if they kick all the white nationalists out, and tell them that they're not welcome in the Party, more Libertarians will continue to convert to white nationalism. Libertarianism is a gateway drug to white nationalism; not all Libertarians become white nationalists, but many do. It's like how not all Muslims become radical jihadists, but many do. Moderate Islam is a gateway to truck attacks and terrorist bombings. It doesn't lead directly there, and not everyone ultimately goes to that extreme, but for some, it can lead indirectly there.

"The libertarian movement, much like the manosphere, will continue to be a breeding ground for white nationalists for the foreseeable future. It's an established fact that Curtis Yarvin, for instance, started out as a Misesian before he founded neoreaction, many of whose followers are white nationalists, even if Yarvin himself does not consider himself a white nationalist. There will be more defections and more denunciations as people take ideas to their logical conclusions and get radicalized. Eventually, maybe we will set up our own party, although many choose to run in Republican primaries instead.

"Part of what makes Libertarians defect is that they find that the party's pretense to being 'The Party of Principle' is a sham. Modern Libertarians care more about 'messaging,' i.e. presenting ideas in a way that will supposedly be palatable to normies, than about ideological purity. They have watered down their party platform to try to make it more appealing to the masses, and introduced a lot of ambiguity to it so that while superficially, there may be nothing in there to offend the more die-hard libertarians, it can be interpreted in such ways as to justify banning from the party those who dissent from mainstream opinion on issues like how best to raise their kids.

"Libertarians apparently forgot the lesson from campaigns like Ed Clark's 1980 presidential run. They need to re-read Rothbard's 'The Clark Campaign: Never Again,' whose main lesson was, when Libertarians compromised their principles, they didn't even get the votes. Gary Johnson got an impressive number of votes in 2016, but that was largely due to the unpopularity of his opponents, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. It wasn't due to his relatively moderate stances, which mostly bored the voters.

"PurpleSquirrel writes, 'It's long seemed to me that the farther out you go on the ideological spectrum, the less your 'politics' resembles practical work for reasonable goals, and the more it comes off as performance art and/or public group-therapy.' This is true. Larson for Congress is a black comedy, detective story, and psychological thriller, maybe even crossing over into the psychological horror genre; it is up to each member of the audience to come up with his own interpretation."

Nathan Larson weighs in on the situation of Tony Hovater, who was recently fired after a New York Times piece about his Nazi sympathies came out

1 December 2017 — Catlett, Virginia — Neoreactionary libertarian congressional candidate Nathan Larson expressed his opinions today with regard to Tony Havater, a New Carlisle, Ohio resident who lost his job after an article, "A Voice of Hate in America’s Heartland", was published in the New York Times.

"My guess is that Hovater, like me, is trying to play the long game," Larson noted. "I don't think it's all that surprising to him that the situation has thus far played out in the way that it has. He's asking for charity, but charity is supposed to be short-term, and I don't know what he's going to do to avoid exhausting the resources of everyone around him and ending up broke again, unless he's going to find a way to dramatically cut his cost of living.

"He could just give up his family and go on welfare, Heath Hitler style. When guys do this kind of stuff (i.e. have New York Times pieces written about their Nazi sympathies), I suspect they weren't all that happy with their situation anyway. They probably had some of that Loser Manifesto sentiment, that in today's society you don't really get ahead too much by trying to fit in.

"People say it's dishonorable to put your family in a bind by taking an unpopular stand that will result in persecution. See though, men have contradictory duties. It's like how soldiers have a duty to go to war, but they also have a duty to support their families. What happens if they get shot? Well, the military supposedly will take care of their families, and of course there are plenty of private charities allegedly willing to help too. (Makes you wonder, if people can't wait to donate to every "wounded veteran" charity, why are there so many homeless wounded veterans begging on the street corner for loose change?) But you never know. The government can change its wounded veterans policies at any time.

"Men are responsible for being providers, but also for doing any fighting or rescuing that needs to be done. In times past, they also were expected to die for their religion. There's always a danger that their wives could become widows and their kids orphans.

"This used to happen in New Hampshire, too -- the liberty activists would do some civil disobedience, go to jail, and need people to bail them out. It definitely taught the stupidity of certain laws, like the law saying it's a felony to record a phone conversation with the police (even though they're recording their conversations with us).

"Mainstream society even says it was wrong for ordinary Germans to be "bystanders" during the Holocaust. Well, what else were they supposed to do? It was going to fall on men to somehow stop Hitler, if he was going to be stopped. That probably means risking getting shot or going to the concentration camps. What about duty to one's own family? But, they have that guilt trip about being a bystander, because that makes it easy to justify taxing the German middle class to pay reparations to the "Holocaust victims".

"The guy can always ask for money if he wants, I guess, and complain that it pisses him off if no one helps him. The effect of that would be that for the foreseeable future, people will probably be less inclined to want to do this kind of White Nationalism 1.0 stuff. Either way, he's become a part of history.

"Something's gotta give. Either duty to family takes precedence, or duty to the volk. Which is it?

"There can be competing forms of honor, right? And then you have to figure out, what's the higher honor? If a guy sells drugs to feed his family, society will say, "You had a higher duty to society not to deal drugs." Then society will shift the blame and say that it's his fault that his family doesn't have him around anymore, because "he put himself in jail."

"I guess the way women look at it is, they have a birthright to have some man or another take care of them financially. If that doesn't happen, then they can leave and do what they want. Is that the only penalty, or should the guy also get shamed for not fulfilling his moral responsibility to his wife?

"Personally, I don't see the benefit to shaming those men. They suffer enough. If he's broke, then his wife is either going to leave him, or she's going to start being a total bitch to him, in all likelihood, unless it's one of those cases where he's just so alpha, and she's just so into him, that she's willing to stay with him and not be a bitch and be faithful to him. I've never been in a situation like that, where a woman acted that way when I was totally broke, so I can't say I know from personal experience that it exists.

"In a patriarchal society, who's to say that the wife has a right to support from her husband? If he owns her, why can't he say, "Go out and work and support the family" the same way one would order a slave girl to go pick cotton or something to support both herself and the plantation?

"If she's property, then she really doesn't have right to anything. Honor doesn't exist between men and women. Honor exists between men and other men. If it's dishonorable to fail to support one's wife and family, that's because other men decided that it inconveniences them when other men's wives and families aren't supported.

"But those women and children could just die. Why not? Why should only men have to take one for the team? Women and children could die too when men lose their livelihoods. Men don't have a right to their livelihoods, apparently, so why should their families have any right to, indirectly, receive the benefits of that livelihood?

"Why aren't people complaining about the mean and nasty anti-Nazis who are hurting this guy's wife and family? Shouldn't society leave him alone so that they don't suffer as collateral damage? But I guess they want to wipe out the whole family. Isn't that sorta like genocide? They're civilians and noncombatants, yet they have to suffer.

"I think if men want to put their activism ahead of supporting their families, it should be because that's what's most important to them. Thoreau would say, they should be shamed for putting that first, because their higher duty is to society and to what's right. Well, I'm not really gonna push that theory on anyone, because I found it doesn't work. There's not enough support for Thoreauvian ethics to turn it into an enforceable moral imperative. I had to give up on that and say "whatever" and lick my wounds as best I could.

"It's whatever. We're in an ethics-free zone now, I've decided. Nobody gives a shit about ethics -- not consistently or logically, anyway. It's anything goes. If anyone tries to heap shame on someone for being unethical or dishonorable, most of the time, it's just a way of manipulating them, because the person heaping the shame does tons of unethical shit just for the sake of living a more comfortable life. It really is the pot calling the kettle black, but I can't really press that issue because I don't have enough support on my side to make it an issue anyone cares about.

"It might not be so bad if women were told by their culture, "You know what, you don't have a right to expect support from your husband. He may at any time be called away to a higher duty that's going to leave you in poverty." I think that's fair, since men don't have any right to pussy either. Young men can answer the call to fight for the volk and end up impoverished and not able to get a wife, so they just have to spank the monkey the rest of their lives (unless some woman wants to bang them just because they're cool and alpha for answering the call when other men didn't). Women don't have that problem.

"Women complain, 'I can't handle supporting the family and taking care of the kids, etc. all at once.' What about men? We can't handle either the responsibility of both supporting the family and taking care of the volk. We're overloaded too. Somebody, maybe both spouses, are just gonna need to take one for the team.

"But another problem is, in our society, kids are kept dependent for too long. If this dude has daughters, why can't they be married off immediately? If this dude has sons, why can't they be given to someone who can take care of them? Let's suppose we lived in a free society where boys could roam about fairly freely, especially with the consent of their dad. Why couldn't that kid show up at some Nazi's house and be like, 'Hey, we lost our house because there was a NYT story about how we were the Nazis next door; can you take us in?' Why not take him in?

"Look at your situation, for instance. You might be able to take a kid like that in. Then your son (if you have one) would have a companion, you could train him in the Nazi arts, etc. Help him grow into a strong Aryan man. That could be your contribution. And no one could say that you were doing anything wrong, because after all, shouldn't the kid have someone to help him, since he wasn't the one (yet) who was the Nazi next door? That was his dad.

"I take it as a challenge for people to find creative ways to help people. Pete Eyre used to say, his group of activists had a safety net of people helping people, a lot of times in the underground economy, where stuff wasn't taxed or regulated. People working and getting paid under the table, etc. I tend to agree with the sentiment expressed in Aquila's 'Defeatism is treason', 'No one man can do everything. But everyone can do something to help the cause, whether it's speaking out, activism, charity or confrontation.'

"Where there's a will, there's a way. But we shouldn't put men in situations where they're shamed for doing their manly duty, and society (aka the volk?) shouldn't have to deal with a situation where all the men have been told, 'You have to duty to serve other interests ahead of the volk.' Maybe that's how we ended up in this situation to begin with -- and now it's biting the family unit in the butt too, because the family unit is not even fulfilling its function the way it used to. That is, the white genetic line and culture are not being propagated the way they once were via the family. White family lines are in danger of dying out.

"Maybe it's because we got so far away from a 'people helping people' dynamic that it's become so expensive to feed, clothe, and shelter a family. In a more cohesive tribe, there would be more sharing of resources, in a synergistic way, where the charity actually makes both parties richer. It would be like the Mormons, or any other church (but especially the Mormons, who know how to do what it takes to produce and provide for massive numbers of kids on the cheap).

"In Mormon society, a social safety net was built into the system. They assumed they were going to be persecuted and have to help each other as a group. They didn't blame anyone, 'Hey, if you hadn't been proselytizing, you wouldn't have gotten into this mess, and your family wouldn't have become a burden on other Mormons.' They just said, 'Okay, this is what the evil unbelievers do to God's people, but we're not gonna let it stop us. We're gonna keep on having multiple wives, we're gonna keep on making lots of Mormon babies, and we don't need to rely on the state to provide for them. We have all of our members pay a 10 percent tithe, and when anyone needs help, that comes out of that treasury. And we're just gonna keep on trucking with this proselytizing, and maybe even step it up a notch.'

"Not only did they have enough to help all their own members, but they helped people outside the church too. All while producing massive families.

"Maybe we do need some kind of church, or church-equivalent, for situations like this, because someone has to do the coordinating and say, 'Okay, help this brother out' or 'This guy's being a fuckhead; he's cut off. Don't help him or even talk to him.'

"Time to create a polgynous white cult! I brought that up at RVF, but forgot to include the 'white' part.

"Of course, eventually, the Mormons caved in and got rid of polygyny, and maybe that's going to be their downfall. Maybe they got corrupt and reached out for power and mainstream respect when they should've stuck to their guns."

Nathan Larson lays out his thoughts on genocide

1 December 2017 — Catlett, Virginia — Neoreactionary libertarian congressional candidate Nathan Larson laid out his thoughts today on genocide of inferior races and troublesome Jews.

"People say it's horrible that whites destroy other cultures and races," Larson remarked. "But if people are trying to destroy the white culture and race, isn't that just as bad, if not worse, given that whites feed all the other races and look after them?

"In school, they always taught us that the rain forests are being destroyed by the South American farmers who don't know how to farm without burning down a bunch of rain forest. They also taught us that blacks were starving in Africa. Obviously these other races don't have their shit together. Whites don't have those problems, though.

"They always taught us that we're lucky to live in one of the very few countries in the world that isn't a miserable shithole. So, unless we want the whole world to be a miserable shithole, we better take care of the blancosphere, right? (Wasn't sure what you would call the white part of the world, so I thought I'd throw a French or Spanish prefix in front of '-osphere')

"If the Jews are doing stuff that by now they should know could drive the white race extinct, how is that not some kind of genocide? You know what they said was okay to do to the last group of people who got accused of having genocidal tendencies?

"We also have to ask ourselves, What's the alternative to genocide?

"I worked at a computer repair shop (I was about to say computer care clinic, but that's kinda pretentiously gay) where the owner had stacked up all kinds of obsolete equipment, like PS/2 mice and keyboards (or, worse, keyboards with DIN connectors). Most computers don't have a PS/2 port anymore.

"There's really no reason to have a PS/2 input device, unless you're refurbishing an old computer, but why would you want to do that? All it's going to be able to run is Windows XP or Lubuntu or something. There's not a lot of demand for that, and it's not really worth the expenditure of labor (unless you have some chump like me working as an unpaid intern) when you can just buy a new computer for a few hundred bucks. Anyway, you don't need to keep boxes and boxes of used PS/2 devices hanging around your shop taking up space and getting in the way, making it harder to find anything you're looking for. This is the USB era.

"Blacks are the same way. If they're obsolete, they're obsolete. Why do we need to keep ~1.3 billion of them around in this world? This is the white era. We've advanced beyond that biological technology. Blacks, at this point, are just taking up space. Half the time, they have to be warehoused in prison because the white race figured, 'Gee, we need to get these blacks off the street somehow, yet we can't kill them. I know! Let's have a drug war.'

"Even if we shipped them off to Africa, they'd still be a liability. They cause the same problem as gays, which is that they spread HIV and other diseases everywhere, because they're not civilized enough to practice basic disease control measures. They drive native species extinct with their hunting, which is a form of genocide. Why should we try so hard to preserve diversity of races, at the expense of diversity of species? Why is propagating one race, the black race, worth killing off bonobos, elephants, rhinos, and countless other animal species?

"Blacks are killing off other species based on the reasoning that humans are above animals. Well, if whites are above blacks, then what? We actually need these African countries to ourselves anyway. We could turn Zimbabwe back into Rhodesia, for instance. It could be a flourishing, wonderful country.

"Half the time, African blacks are massacring one another anyway. Most of the war crimes are in Africa. Whites have to try to police them and bring people like Joseph Kony to justice. Why not just take a machine gun to all of them and be like, 'Okay, now there'll be no more war crimes'? The alternative is that we have to basically run Africa for them anyway. We have to constantly intervene to make sure they aren't killing one another. But that's colonialism, which is supposedly bad. So it's a no-win situation; no matter what, whites are accused of dominating or not caring about the black man.

"It's like how in the suburbs, people think, 'Oh, look, it's so cute that there are these deer walking around the patches of forest that are still left!' Those deer are carrying massive amounts of ticks that could spread to the tall grass at the periphery of your lawn and give you Lyme disease. It's really not all that cute. Those deer need to be poisoned or shot.

"And all those PS/2 mice and keyboards, except for maybe a very small number, need to be thrown in the landfill.

"But maybe I spoke too soon. I see that according to Wikipedia, PS/2 ports have a number of benefits, such as fewer problems when KVM switching with non-Wintel systems, better security, lower latencies for keyboards due to the interrupt-driven manner PS/2 keyboards communicate with the computer by default, power savings, etc. See, this is why people are so reluctant to engage in genocide -- you never know when something you're thinking of throwing out might actually be useful.

"Yet one might also argue that genocide is an act of kindness. It's actually nicer sometimes to just go ahead and kill people who have no future. I try to find some use in this world, and apparently I've found some sort of niche as a political shitlord and human housepet, although like many housepets, I don't get to reproduce. I don't really care, though, because I'm getting close to the halfway mark of my life anyway, and I seem to find ways to stay busy most of the time.

"People want to complain, 'Oh, felons shouldn't be allowed to run for office because they muck up our politics with the same kind of fucked-up thinking that got them into trouble with the law.' But if you're going to exclude people from everything, what's the point of having them around?

"If blacks are so annoying to deal with that whites move away from them to the suburbs, why bother keeping them around in the inner city either, or in Section 8 housing, or wherever? That's money and space that could go to whites.

"Are blacks really all that happy? It seems to me like they're usually angry that their glory days are over. Who wouldn't be? They're like Grampa Simpson, talking about how back in his day, they wuz kangz.

"They're really just disgruntled that nobody is committing genocide against them. They look at us and think, 'What kind of superior race just leaves the inferior races around to take up space? White people ain't shit.' That's why honky gets so much disrespect.

"We keep around way too many people and races that have outlived their usefulness, because we prefer that life (except animal life) end with a long, drawn-out, fade into darkness rather than a sudden, violent stop. Even the death penalty is carried out in an unnecessarily slow way, with a three-drug cocktail that takes a long time to administer, instead of a simple bullet to the head. We have to overcomplicate everything rather than just going with the easiest and most expedient solution and getting on with business.

"Basically, we're not confident; we second-guess ourselves and pussyfoot around. Women hate that. No wonder they despise whites and want to go ride the black snake. That right there, in and of itself, is a good reason for genocide.

"I dunno, I've had a few times when I kept stuff around that I didn't need, and it became useful later. I wish, for instance, I had kept around some of my old writings. I also had an external hard drive fall on the floor and break, and I kept it around and then unexpectedly stumbled upon a way to retrieve the data by taking it apart, since there was a SATA internal hard drive inside.

"But most of the stuff I keep around is just clutter. All these clothes, etc. that I never wear. I'm just procrastinating dealing with it, and maybe when I die, someone will finally clear all this stuff out. My sister is very aggressive about wanting to purge clutter, maybe too aggressive, because she's had to move so many times that she broke her habit of accumulating junk.

"A friend of mine said, with regard to convicted felons, 'Keeping them around with laundry lists of restrictions and zero prospects for any kind of life is like abandoning housepets in the woods after you no longer want them. The kind, but hard, thing to do would be just to kill them rather than let them starve to death. Faggots who refuse to do the manly thing make them suffer and die, starving, cold, and alone.'

"The thing about abandoning housepets in the woods is that there's really no cost to it -- kind of like how it's pretty cheap to just lock up millions of blacks. So while it's not the most humane choice, because blacks are mostly irrelevant to us (primacy of white male opinion and all that), we just kinda ignore them rather than going to the trouble of dealing with them in any decisive way. Most people didn't go to school in Milwaukee, I guess, so they never had any really bad experiences with blacks. I've known guys who tried to befriend blacks and they became some of the most racist people because they put those blacks in a position to fuck them over."

Nathan Larson offers suggestions to intelligent adolescent men on coping with sexual frustration

1 December 2017 — Catlett, Virginia — Neoreactionary libertarian congressional candidate Nathan Larson delivered an inspiring message to smart but socially awkward teenage men who feel dismayed and unhappy at not being able to get any sex. He compared what they are going through to the early stages of his own journey toward a more enlightened view of relations between the sexes.

"I feel your pain," Larson remarked, "for I too have known the struggle. Many young incels have so little self-confidence, they doubt whether they will ever be able to get a woman.

"What kind of world do we live in, where an intelligent, competent man of the master race needs to think that way? But society told us to pedestalize pussy, and to think that only men with some certain kind of inexplicable charisma or whatever are worthy of it. We watched as those men who broke all the rules got the favor of women and their pussy.

"Why in a rational world would events transpire in that way? Men shape the whole world to meet their needs; why would they not also mold the sexual world to meet their needs? We take what we want from nature to feed, clothe, and shelter ourselves. Women are part of nature; why would we not also take them?

"After all, women will certainly use whatever manipulative skills are at their disposal to get men to do what they want. They exist in a world where their resource is not nature, but men, and their version of hunting and gathering is to try to use their beauty and charm to extract resources from men. If they could get away with it, they would practice the alpha fucks/beta bucks strategy all day long without remorse. Any man dumb enough to allow it deserves it, in their view. Meanwhile, if she can figure out a way to get away with it, then that's her reward for being smart.

"Feminists catch beta men in a clever double-bind in which they say, if you were a truly nice guy, you wouldn't demand sex in return for being nice. Men lose either way, because if they're nice, then they don't demand (and therefore don't get) sex; yet if they do demand sex, then they don't deserve sex, because they're not nice. Therefore, if there is any such thing as a true "nice guy" by this definition, he's quickly going to go extinct from lack of sex and reproduction. Why not place women in a double-bind instead, in which if they say yes, they get sex, and if they say no, they get sex? Sex is healthy and natural, so if there's going to be a double-bind, it should be one that's in favor of sex rather than against.

"Even if you don't rape women, there's no guarantee you won't get accused of rape. Women make false rape accusations all the time, knowing there will be no penalty for lying because society will give them the benefit of the doubt. Maybe you'll have sex with a girl and then later she'll feel like a slut and cry rape so she can evade responsibility. Or you might get drunk with a girl who passes out while you're messing around together, and then she'll accuse you of rape for not noticing and stopping immediately. That's what happened to Brock Turner! As his dad pointed out, he had 'a steep price to pay for 20 minutes of action out of his 20 plus years of life'.

"Or you might remain involuntarily celibate for years, and when you finally get to put a ring on a post-carousel girl who at last has reached her epiphany phase, maybe she'll ultimately end up frivorcing you and making a false rape accusation to get the upper hand in family court. Since you run the risk of getting accused of rape whether you rape women or not, might as well actually rape them, so you can at least get some girls who are in their nubile prime!

"Did you know that girls can feel pleasure and even orgasm during rape? And that during orgasm, their bodies release oxytocin, which causes them to bond with the man who's having sex with them? If you rape her, she might actually fall in love with you! Women have evolved over countless millennia to adjust to situations where they were forced to become war brides. It was in their interests to fall in love with their new husband, even if he took them by force. Sometimes, if you want women to love you, you need to rape them.

"Remember what 'pro-rape' blogger Roosh V wrote: 'Philosophers and poets have given many wonderful definitions of love, but to keep it simple, there are only two main components: 1. Mutual attraction 2. Lack of other options'. If you rape a girl and take her virginity, then she'll have a lack of other options but to fall in love with you, because no other man will want her after that. If she claims to have been raped, they'll think she's either a lying slut or damaged goods with too much baggage to be worth trying to have a committed relationship with.

"Even the Bible, in Deuteronomy 21:10-14 and 22:28-29, says it's okay to take women by force and make them your wives. Women, even young girls, are described as spoils of war in Numbers 31:17-18 and Deuteronomy 20:13-14. The Jews were fine with making women their property when they were the ones who had the upper hand, but now they want to say that it's not okay for you, the Aryan man, to enjoy the same privilege they had? Fuck that. If they're going to claim the right to impose that kind of Jewish supremacy on us, they better be prepared to back it up with force.

"Why worry about whether rape is ethical? When nobody else cares about ethics, your caring just puts you at a disadvantage and makes you a chump. Those men who get sex by falsely telling women they love them and that they're interested in a serious relationship either don't know or don't care about the effect that has on her. (This isn't like the old days, when there were shotgun weddings as a consequence for premarital sex.) Yet you, who might actually love her and want a relationship with her, can't have it till these badboys are done with her, by which point, they will have ruined her.

"You may as well just take what you want, because there's no reason you deserve pussy less than those who are currently getting it. Your raping her is not likely to have a worse effect on her than the 'consensual' sex these other guys have with her (not that it could truly be 'consensual' sex unless her father gave the okay), and it might even have a better effect. At least she'll know that you like her, in contrast to how it'll be if you just sit there and don't have the balls to make a move.

"Charisma (or game, as we know it now) -- what's that? Just techniques to stimulate feminine emotions in a certain way. Playful banter, etc. Some men are good at it, some less so. If you're not good at it, as most young men aren't, then I guess it's easy to feel dismayed.

"But that's like thinking, 'How am I going to eat a hamburger? I'll never be able to convince one of those wild cows that are grazing in the field to just come over and let me slaughter it.'

"You don't convince it. You just capture it by force and take it, and raise livestock in a big enclosure that you control. Then you can get them to do what you want, by offering them food and whatnot. But taming animals usually begins with some exercise of force. Definitely sometimes you're going to need to use force to get them to do stuff that they don't know is in their best interests, like getting in a cat cage to go to the vet. Or you'll need to use force to keep them from wreaking havoc everywhere, or from escaping and getting hurt. Or you'll just need to use force to extract what you need from them, e.g. if you're going to milk a cow or whatever.

"Even now, the men who have game get women who have been made available to them through the use of force. Those high school girls who had sex with the badboys? They were forced to attend school by their parents and by the compulsory education system, which put them in proximity with those badboys.

"(Older men are of course banned from having sex with these girls. What nerd in their right mind would condone the existence of such a fucked-up system, that reserves the youngest, sexiest women for the same type of jock who tormented them when they were teenagers? Do nerds have no self-respect and desire to make life easier for the next generation of nerds? Shouldn't nerds finally get their reward for all the investment they made in bettering themselves and making intellectual contributions to the world, rather than having to settle for the jocks' sloppy seconds?)

"So since girls are already being forced to hang around badboys, and hardly anyone seems to view that as wrong, it's not that much of a moral leap to say, well, maybe it wouldn't be so bad for the nerds to just use their superior brainpower to come up with some way to overcome these jocks and take these girls for themselves.

"I mean, what's the jock's basis for deserving these girls? That he has superior charisma. What's so great about that? We know these girls will later be complaining that the jock mistreated them, when they're looking for beta boy to come to the rescue. Fuck that. Since these girls are basically admitting they can't choose men well, might as well make the decision for them preemptively. It's for their own good.

"If the nerd can figure out a way to subdue the jock by inventing some kind of laser cannon that blows him to bits, why shouldn't he able to become King of the Nerds and take all the cheerleaders for himself and his tribe of nerds? He's earned it. The white race is basically a race of nerds that overcame the colored jocks. If it was okay then, why isn't it okay now? Why can't the nerds among nerds take to a higher level the same strategy that the original nerds, who came before him, followed? In this way, each generation's nerdiness can exceed that of the generation before them.

"Meanwhile, Jews are kind of like women, in that they try to manipulate their way into getting men to do what they want, except Jews don't even offer pussy in return, which makes them totally worthless, so they should all go to the death camps. But of course, women who manipulate betas without offering them their pussy while they're in their prime are also pretty worthless in the same way as Jews. But, those women can be made useful through rape. (If you subdue or kill off the jocks so that women have no one left to have sex with but nerds, it's not all that different from rape, really. Since it's a distinction without a difference, then, and since women like to be raped anyway, might as well rape them.)

"Basically, there should never be a situation where some nerd is sitting in a classroom next to a hot 15-year-old girl and thinking, 'Gee, no matter what I accomplish, there's no way I could ever bang this chick.' Why not; isn't intelligence the chief virtue? Humans really don't have much to distinguish them from the other animals, other than intelligence. We don't have as good a sense of smell as dogs, we're not as strong as chimpanzees, we're not as fast as the cheetah, etc.

"Animals don't use game for survival. They don't even use it that much in mating rituals, that I can tell. It's more like, which peacock has the most handsome tail? Which dung beetle brings the most savory ball of shit as a nuptial gift? Etc., etc.

"Showing dominance over the jocks probably is a form of game in and of itself, since it's pretty alpha. That seems to me more in accordance with the law of nature -- males fighting with other males for dominance so they can get access to mates. The reason the girls are having sex with these Chads is that they perceive them as being more alpha than you. But if you rape those girls, then you'll be demonstrating that you're the most alpha of all. Female resistance to sex is merely a shit test to separate the strong from the weak; if you successfully rape a girl, then that means you passed the test and proved yourself worthy of her pussy.

"Why are 15-year-old girls even in school, anyway? That's the starting point of the problems. They shouldn't even be in an environment where they're playing the role of men (being nominally their 'peers' -- ha, what a laugh) yet having the great advantage over their male classmates of being at their sexual market value peak despite not having any actual accomplishments under their belt aside from hitting puberty.

"A healthy sense of contempt for women, including the most attractive of them, will give you the confidence you need to force your will upon them. Yet this sexual predation is not motivated by hate, but rather, an acknowledgement of one's place in the natural order. As Hitler pointed out, 'the struggle between the various species does not arise from a feeling of mutual antipathy but rather from hunger and love. In both cases Nature looks on calmly and is even pleased with what happens. The struggle for the daily livelihood leaves behind in the ruck everything that is weak or diseased or wavering; while the fight of the male to possess the female gives to the strongest the right, or at least, the possibility to propagate its kind. And this struggle is a means of furthering the health and powers of resistance in the species. Thus it is one of the causes underlying the process of development towards a higher quality of being.'"

"I used to feel lonely and melancholy, but once I became willing to rape and sexually abuse girls (one of whom even got pregnant), my love life became a lot more satisfying. I found that all I had to do, when I wanted a girl, was just find some pretext for luring her to come down into the basement, and then I could just slam the door behind her, and the rest was easy.

"Even as a teenager, the thought went through my mind, 'I don't deserve to be sexually frustrated. I should be allowed to rape these girls.' But it took me all this time to really come up with a systematic theory supporting that idea.

"Take comfort in knowing that you have my moral support in doing what's needed to put these girls in their place. Go forth and conquer, young nerds! Propagate rape culture and take what's rightfully yours.

"All I, or society, can reasonably ask is that you be a responsible rapist and fulfill your proper role as a patriarch. Take care of the women whose bodies you claim by force, or by paying a bride price to their father, or whatever one will do in our future male-dominated society to obtain women. Provide for them, protect them, give them attention, don't whip them too harshly unless they really deserve it, etc. Treat your property with the respect it deserves."

Nathan Larson advocates cultural and legal changes to build strong and robust families

1 December 2017 — Catlett, Virginia — Neoreactionary libertarian congressional candidate Nathan Larson proposed sweeping cultural and legal changes to the institution of the family.

"First of all, the idea of a 'nuclear' family needs to be rejected," Larson noted. "'Nucleus' implies there's at least a proton and a neutron (i.e. husband and wife) at the center. A proton and a neutron have about the same molecular weight. Patriarchy, on the other hand, means the husband is at the center. The wife is just another electron, with the same status as a daughter. An elder daughter, maybe, but not a substitute for a man.

"(In the incestuously pedohebephebophilic kind of family I fantasize about, wives are spanked like any other daughter and daughters are banged like any other wife, and they all call their man daddy. So their role truly is identical, and their status equal, with only factors like age, seniority, responsibility and, yes, the husband's favoritism, establishing a hierarchy among them. But that's another story.)

"For the wife to have to run the family is more like a flight attendant, rather than a first officer, having to take over the controls and land a plane in the event of an emergency. It's plausible that it could be done and turn out fine, but it's much preferable to have a real pilot (maybe one who's deadheading) fulfill that role if necessary. The plan shouldn't call for her to be the primary backup, if it can be avoided.

"Obviously, family law doesn't treat the situation this way. But family law is mostly irrelevant if the situation is set up properly. When family law gets involved, it usually means the situation already broke down, or was improperly set up to begin with. (Kind of like how, as I realize now, my two marriages were set up improperly from the get-go.)

"Levirate marriage should probably be a thing. Why not? In the event the husband dies, it makes a lot of sense for someone like his brother to take over. He'll have a genetic tie to the kids and therefore more reason to care about them and raise them as though they were his own. He probably shares some characteristics with his brother, possibly including mate preferences, so in that sense it's like swapping out one part for a similar part. Of course, he may already be married, but that's where acceptance of polgyny comes in.

"For a family to be robust (not just strong), polygyny is ideal. It produces lots of interrelated half-siblings. The brothers can partner with each other on various projects. Two or more sisters can be married off to the same man, so that they have a literal sister-wife bond reinforcing the relationship. The mothers and wives can be backups for each other. It builds redundancy into the system. If one of the wives is infertile, she can help raise the other wives' kids. If the husband is infertile, his brother can step in. Kids love living in a polygynous family because they have so many companions and moms and other relatives for support.

"Of course, in trying to implement polygyny, one potentially has to deal with female jealousy. That's where the idea of the man being the king comes in. He gets what he wants. His desire for access to multiple women's pussies overrides their desire to have him to themselves. He earned it, by doing whatever one has to do in this society to obtain multiple wives.

"Maybe that's 90 percent of it right there -- have large families with multiple wives, and keep the clan together so the brothers can work together. They can help train the boys in various trades. It's people helping people who share a common familial affinity.

"Let the patriarch at the center coordinate the distribution of resources for maximal efficiency, buying or producing in bulk and sharing what can be shared rather than buying a bunch of stuff that isn't needed. Have lots of low-cost communal bonding activities (traditional societies do a lot of singing, and the Mormons have Family Home Evening) that substitute for expensive entertainment. Don't buy a bunch of prepared, processed food; have the girls make everything from scratch. With the money you save on grocery bills, you can afford to have more girls to work in the kitchen. Instead of sending the girls to college, marry them off early. That saves money and also reinforces patriarchy.

"Be like Father Yod, in other words. Be a pimp mack daddy clan leader. Or be a prince in that kingly family. It's not bad to be a prince, as long as don't do something dumb like Prince Harry and marry an old, divorced half-negress."

Nathan Larson announces candidacy for 10th district U.S. Representative

12 November 2017 — Catlett, Virginia — Neoreactionary libertarian congressional candidate Nathan Larson today announced his candidacy in Virginia's 10th congressional district election of 2018 on a platform of patriarchy, white supremacy, countersemitism, free markets, and individual liberty for intelligent cisgender heterosexual non-Jewish white men.

"Patriarchy and white supremacy are often assumed to be antilibertarian," Larson noted. "Yet for liberty to exist, there must be libertarians who are able and willing to defend it. With liberty comes responsibility, and white men are best equipped to handle that burden.

"White men have always been the demographic most likely to identify as libertarian and join the Libertarian Party. Even when Libertarians support a policy, like ending the drug war, that would benefit blacks, blacks still vote against Libertarians, because they don't know any better. They're not intelligent enough to understand that voting for politicians who want to lock them up is a bad idea. I would say that their incompetence is a threat to the liberty of all, but the truth is that white men created this problem by passing the Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and therefore it is up to us to correct our mistake.

"Gary Johnson would have pardoned all the drug dealers so that they could go back to their families and enter the workforce with a clean criminal record. Yet Gary Johnson got his highest percentage of votes in heavily white states rather than in regions like the Deep South with a large black population. Why, oh why, must blacks turn against their own incarcerated brothers like this? Can't they all just get along?

"Women, too, are not up to the challenge of governing themselves. The sexes are complementary, and only together form a complete whole. Just as men need women in order to reproduce, women need a husband, father, or other male authority figure to provide guidance.

"Feminists, especially male feminists, have overturned the natural order in which men had authority to rule their families and nation. The resulting low birth rates threaten to depopulate this country, particularly of the middle-class whites who most thoroughly embraced the feminist ideology.

"Modern women, through their public displays of self-destructive behavior, including mistreatment of any man who would treat women with kindness, are practically begging men to take charge and put them in their place. I think it is time for men to answer the call.

"Yet many white men feel helpless to rectify the situation. They need to remember that women are so unsuitable for the task of leadership that they cannot even run the feminist movement without male help. Therefore, all men need do is stop being manginas and white knights, and instead seize their power back, for patriarchy to be restored. It does not matter if women comprise a large percentage of the electorate. Women want strong families too, and will happily relinquish the burdens of decision-making to capable men at the first opportunity. At any rate, men still have the muscles and the guns, which are what matter in any revolution that turns violent. In contrast, the the Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution is just a piece of paper, much like the marriage contracts that women are so quick to shred through frivorce.

"80 percent of life is showing up. If whites don't reproduce, we're not even showing up to the future, so therefore, by default, the future will belong to non-whites. The law of comparative advantage suggests that the larger population we have, the more scope there will be for specialization and division of labor that will make us all wealthier.

"To get the white population's numbers back up, I call for a program of capitalistic eugenics in which girls will be bred by private companies for superior beauty, intelligence, and temperament and sold in the market. Polygynous marriage should be legalized and the The age of marriageability should be abolished so that men with the necessary resources to support multiple wives of fertile age can do so. When white girls start having babies at 15 instead of 30 years old, it will be possible for the white population to multiply twice as rapidly.

"Incest should be legalized, so that inbreeding can be used to establish new and desirable traits, reveal and purge recessive deleterious alleles, and reduce recombination load and outbreeding depression. Donald Trump has already brought about a cultural change by ushering in a new era of politicians whose passionate desire to have sex with their own daughters is so intense that they cannot resist expressing it to the whole world."

Larson also called for white supremacy in government: "Any blacks and Latinos who enjoy amenities such as electricity, running water, transportation, communication technology, or homes that aren't made out of mud, should support white rule, as it is better than any leadership they would have seen in their home countries. There is a reason why those who show pride for their ancestry by waving the flags of African and Latin American countries have no desire to actually go back there.

"Many experiments have been tried in which whites attempted to train the peoples of, say, the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Rhodesia, or even the District of Columbia to govern themselves. The results have always been waste, corruption, and mismanagement producing mass poverty, crime, and misery. Were it not for continued handouts from whites, there would be children starving to death on the streets of D.C. the same way they waste away with distended bellies in the African savannas. There would be warfare and genocide on a scale much worse than what Hitler is sometimes accused of having been responsible for.

"The history of Africa and the crime statistics of America reveal the truth that the most dangerous enemy of the black man is the black man himself, when he is not adequately restrained by the white man's law. It is blacks who murder blacks, blacks who rape blacks, blacks who recruit black youth into violent black street gangs, and blacks who destroy black literacy whenever they are put in charge of a black district's school system. Without the white man doing what he can to keep them civilized, they would quickly revert back to swinging from vines and grunting 'oogabooga' at one another, leaving the abandoned cities to decay until finally collapsing into rubble, like King Louie's palace in The Jungle Book.

"Indeed, the white man has been the greatest benefactor the black race has ever known. We brought them over to America to help build our economy, and as a reward for their service, we gave their descendants full citizenship. We raised them up from their former station to be part of the most powerful and prosperous nation in the world. We passed equal protection, equal opportunity, and affirmative action laws to give them every chance to improve their situation. Blacks today have the opportunity to live in greater dignity and comfort now than they ever could have had in Africa. If they have failed to take full advantage of it, that is because of their own limitations, not because of any constraint imposed by whites. It is not whites' fault if some blacks did not heed the Emancipation Proclamation's exhortation 'to abstain from all violence, unless in necessary self-defence' and 'that, in all cases when allowed, they labor faithfully for reasonable wages.'

Barack Obama and the woman who made his Presidency possible through white genes and upbringing

"Blacks trumpet Barack Obama's presidency as a landmark accomplishment in black history. But Obama's Kenyan father, Barack Obama Sr., was mostly absent from his life. It was the intellect the younger Barack inherited, and the upbringing he received, from his white mother, Ann Dunham, that enabled him to connect with white voters, succeed in politics, and work so effectively for the advancement of colored people. Thus, even the accomplishments of 'the first black president' are ultimately white accomplishments. Other black politicians, such as Jesse Jackson, lacking Obama's white heritage, would not have been able to do what Barack did.

"Meanwhile, Donald Trump seeks to deport the Latinos for bringing crime into our country. Why them; why not the blacks? Latinos are harder working, and their women are more beautiful, than blacks. Their contributions to the hospitality, agricultural, landscaping, and construction industries are greater. In contrast to many of the blacks, some Latinos have actually mastered skills more advanced and useful to society than carrying a football down a field or turning a pistol sideways and robbing a convenience store. But despite their superiorities over the black race, it would be a mistake to go so far as to say that Latinos are capable of functioning on the same level as whites or Asians in the academic, technological, or governmental fields.

"If every white and Asian man disappeared tomorrow, at best, virtually all progress in science and the useful arts would halt immediately, and at worst, society would collapse into primitive squalor and barbarism. Our neighborhoods would devolve into ghettos and war zones, and the United States would become another Zimbabwe or Venezuela. With the exception of a few outliers like Clarence Thomas or Ben Carson (who, if they underwent genetic testing, might very well turn out to have some white ancestry anyway), blacks and Latinos simply do not have the kind of intellect needed to run a first-world country or even a major corporation. White and Asian men are supreme at every task where mental ability is the main requirement; and where creativity, innovation, and risk-taking are needed, the whites edge out the Asians.

"When mandatory nondiscrimination policy are instituted, it actually hurts minorities by keeping whites from running communities and businesses in the most efficient way. When diverse peoples are forced into proximity with one another, it keeps them from building their own cultures and raising their own families free from interference by outsiders. I stand with leaders like Corey Stewart who oppose political correctness that gets in the way of telling the truth. And I seek to rally the Caucasians who comprise 73 percent of the 10th district's electorate around the idea that if western civilization is to survive, we must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children.

"Whites have instituted policies like the war on drugs and felony disenfranchisement as a way of keeping the black man down under the pretense of protecting public health and safety. They have implemented an 18:1 sentencing disparity for crack and powder cocaine offenses and made possession of a firearm or ammunition by a prohibited person a separate felony offense unto itself.

"Instead of doing that, why not just be openly racist and segregationist, and find more effective and honest ways of assuring white supremacy? We can instead abolish the one-man, one-vote system of democracy and institute aristocratic rule. That way, we won't lose our civil liberties as collateral damage in the fight to keep blacks from gaining control over government and politics. Consumers will be protected by standardized quality and dosage of recreational drugs, and we won't funnel so much money into organized crime, when private companies are allowed to sell recreational substances.

"We need to get rid of home rule in D.C. and appoint a white colonial administrator to govern the city. The founding fathers, when they were drafting the U.S. Constitution, noticed that D.C. was a predominantly black city and therefore would not be able to govern itself adequately through the democratic process. It was for this reason that they included a provision in Article I, Section 8 allowing Congress to legislate for the District. This is also why the Constitution did not allocate D.C. any U.S. Representatives or Senators.

"Under white rule, D.C.'s crumbling infrastructure will be repaired so that the city can flourish as a regional hub of culture, commerce, and politics. The ghettos will be cleared of criminals, making the city a safer commuting destination for those northern Virginians who, five mornings a week, don their pith helmets to embark on a perilous safari across the Potomac River and into the heart of darkness.

"Every day, the suburban whites wake up before dawn to leave the safety of their gated strongholds, fortified by patrols and steel fences against incursions by marauding black savages. Mounting their iron horses, they follow the compass eastward, joining the slow-moving caravans bound for the mysterious lands occupied by the negroid races. They travel upon roads such as Lee Highway or John Mosby highway, named after those brave men who fought valiantly, if unsuccessfully, to secure the land for the whites who had brought civilization to this place.

"Their carriages begin to rumble across the bridge spanning the polluted waters -- fouled, perhaps, with the excrement of natives who, in the primitive squalor brought upon them by their dysfunctional government, lack the indoor plumbing that would give them an alternative to defecating directly into the river -- separating their caucasoid homeland from the Dark Continent. The white man reflects on the hazards that await him and thinks, yes, it is dangerous, but sometimes it is in risking death that you feel most alive. Is it not the white man's manifest destiny to enter these mysterious foreign lands, full of strange peoples and customs, for the sake of exploration, commerce, and enculturation of the whole world? He quells his trepidations, feeling the same pride in his Caucasian heritage that impelled his ancestors to set off by steamship and covered wagon so many years ago. Finally, the caravan reaches the other side of the Potomac.

"Passing through marketplaces thronged with colored merchants selling their wares, the whites sip their coffee to remain alert to the dangers surrounding them. They glance warily about at the impetuous youths thronging the sidewalks below, who like the Matabele tribesmen of old, chatter in their strange dialect as they strut about exposing their buttocks as their women, adorned with gold jewelry, dance about, swaying their hips to the rhythm of the tribal music. For now, though the crimson light of the rising sun plays upon the glistening sweat of the muscular dark flesh of the natives moving about in the semi-darkness, one does not see yet the flash of a razor-sharp assegai openly grasped in the hands of the primitive warriors. But who knows what armed bands may stalk the streets in search of prey to ambush under cover of darkness, when it comes time for the whites to make the long journey westward back to the shelter of their suburban compounds?

"Yet we would do well to consider, who was it who prevented the Aryan whites from subduing these negroid hordes more decisively? Obviously, it was the Jews, whose cultural Marxism closely parallels that of the Chinese who helped train and indoctrinate the fighters of the Zimbabwe African National Union.

"We need to begin reconsidering whether it is in the national interest to have so many Jews in high government positions. I would advocate a moratorium on the appointment of Jews to federal civil service, judicial branch, and central banking positions. (Although as a side note, I think the Federal Reserve should be abolished anyway.) Jews should also be excluded from all committees in the U.S. House and Senate.

"Jews are pushing cultural Marxism through far left organizations like Antifa and egging on terrorist groups such as Blacks Lives Matter to rise up against their white masters. On 12 August 2017, Jew-backed protesters caused one death and at least nineteen injuries when they assaulted James Alex Fields, Jr., while he was peacefully sitting in his car at the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia. Fearing for his life, Fields was forced to flee his assailants by hitting the accelerator. Some of the militant leftists and their sympathizers, perhaps believing that blocking the path of Fields' vehicle could give the attackers an opportunity to inflict more harm upon him, refused to get out of the way, and collided with the front of his car and subsequently with the pavement, costing taxpayers an exorbitant expenditure for rescue and cleanup. We must uphold law and order by punishing the Jewish instigators ultimately responsible for the aggression against Mr. Fields and other whites whose peaceful exercise of constitutional rights was disrupted at this event.

"Two years prior to that, there was a major incident of black-on-white violence in Charleston, South Carolina. Dylann Roof, a 19-year-old struggling to find his way in a society that disparages and blames the white man for all of society's ills, turned to the Almighty for consolation. Seeking to find inspiration by diligently searching the Scriptures for understanding, Mr. Roof accepted an invitation to attend Bible study at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church. He hoped to find brotherhood in the company of those who have given their hearts to Jesus to walk in the way of the Lord. What transpired instead was a shocking betrayal.

"The black churchgoers sat with Mr. Roof through the entire Bible study, behaving toward him in such a seemingly welcoming, friendly, and cordial way that any apprehensions he might have initially felt were lulled into complacency. Then, when they noticed he had lowered his guard, one of them, quite possibly senior pastor and state senator Clementa C. Pinckney, gave the signal to attack. At that point, a group of no fewer than nine violent thugs suddenly advanced on him, their menacing expressions an all-too-clear indication of their intent to murder one of the 'white devils' whom the Jewish educators and media men had taught them was responsible for their problems. Dylann desperately searched for a way out, but every exit was blocked by the converging horde. With a sick feeling in the pit of his stomach, he realized in horror that every option but one had been closed off to him.

"Appalled by the thought of the carnage that might transpire if he could not find some way, somehow, to deescalate the situation, he reached for the only means of self-defense he had been in habit of bringing with him through the crime-ravaged streets of Charleston, a Glock 41 .45-caliber pistol he had fortuitously received from his uncle as a birthday gift. Holding the weapon with shaking hands, his body seeming to viscerally recoil at the thought of the bloody shards of their misshapen skulls exploding all over the sanctuary with the impact of the hollow point rounds, he begged them, 'Please don't make me do this.' But they paid no heed to his pleadings, making the fatal mistake of assuming that the white man, if pushed against the wall and given no other choice for self-preservation, will allow his life to be taken rather than exercise his natural right to secure his own existence.

"They mistook his trembling for weakness, rather than seeing it for what it was, viz., the physical manifestation of his overwhelming sense of compassion for their families, who would have to suffer for their foolishness in underestimating what Caucasian men can and must do when faced with this kind of deadly threat. Dylann's quivering body was but a reflection of his civilized sense of white decency momentarily rebelling at having to face the reality of what every member of the supreme master race dreads being forced to resort to. But he steeled himself for the imminent bloodbath, remembering his duty to fulfill the white man's burden of pacifying the less evolved members of our species.

"As they closed in on him, all Dylann could see in the darkness were their glistening eyeballs and grinning teeth coming closer and closer. Still hoping to defuse the situation, Dylann fired one warning shot into the head of the man who had drawn nearest him, but the others, undeterred by the sound of the body slumping to the floor, continued their inexorable advance. Because, like any other responsible gun owner, Dylann had prepared for the duty of self-defense through extensive target practice, he was able to respond to the situation by muscle memory. As successive waves of thugs charged at Dylann, he gunned them down like rows of tin cans in a back yard shooting range. So aggressive was their rampage toward him that he was forced to reload again and again, to the point that he ran low on ammunition. He began to regret not having thought ahead to every possible contingency when he had made his decision to only bring eight magazines to his encounter with the negroid savages. Finally, though, he was able to miraculously make his way to an exit.

"Dylann rushed to his car and frantically turned the key of his black Hyundai Elantra. He began driving to the police station to report what had happened to him. But then, fearing that if he could not find refuge, other blacks might seek revenge for his act of self-defense, Dylann ultimately decided to pull to the side of the road and ask a law enforcement officer to place him into protective custody. However, it turned out that his ordeal was just beginning. Police detectives subjected him to a grueling interrogation, taking advantage of his already-shattered nerves to bully him into falsely confessing to having planned the shooting all along. His efforts to clear his name were further hindered by the court's refusal to dismiss the Jewish lawyer who had been assigned to his case when Dylann pointed out the conflict of interest.

"As Congressman, I will introduce legislation to issue Dylann Roof the Congressional Medal of Honor for his boldness and initiative in defense of the white race. If anything, it's not a high enough award to adequately distinguish his meritorious deeds from those of soldiers who merely followed orders. Unlike those who served in the armed forces, Dylann thought for himself and had the guts to go against what a sick society told him was right. It was a fitting lesson to the dark-skinned savages of the area that incidents such as the terrifying mob violence that had occurred in Charleston less than two months prior would not be tolerated. With regard to that, we might do well to ask ourselves, as Max Macro did, 'If they play guilt by association games with us, why shouldn’t we do the same to them and make them actually own the ground they stake?' The Charleston church shooting was an important reminder of white power for those who in these troubled times had perhaps forgotten Hilaire Belloc's couplet about colonial life, 'Whatever happens, we have got / The Maxim gun, and they have not.'

"Serial killers and mass shooters teach the colored races not to underestimate the restrained ferocity of the seemingly meek, mild-mannered, and unassuming white man. From school shootings, colored schoolchildren learn not to taunt, bully, or trifle with the quiet and bookish white boy lest one day he reach into his backpack to unleash hell upon his tormentors. Newspeople who interview the youthful gunman's family and publish tales of a troubled childhood can label him as insane, mentally disturbed, or emotionally unstable. But the shooter is not troubled by the knowledge of the psychobabble that will inevitably follow his demise. He dies with a serene and stoic expression, comforted in his last moments by the satisfaction that he got the last laugh, as none of society's disapproval has power to revive the bullet-riddled corpses that bled out in the ambulance on the way to the hospital. Let not the colored races mistake the Caucasian's naturally beautiful milky white complexion for the pallor of fear, for we are not scared to inflict deadly retribution for any violent transgressions by the dark-skinned savage.

"Men like Joseph Paul Franklin, James Earl Ray, James Fields, and Dylann Roof were only able to implement partial and temporary solutions to the black and Jewish problems. Clearly the time has come to organize on a larger scale for a more comprehensive and final solution.

"I encourage Jews to visit the United States Holocaust Museum, where they can get a fresh reminder of what the Aryan man is capable of doing to Jews who get out of line. Let them gaze upon the heap of shoes and meditate on the fact that theirs could be next. Let them purchase a copy of Phil Chernovsky's And Every Single One Was Someone for their coffee table so they can flip through the pages and remember that if they provoke the Aryan, they may appear in the book's sequel.

"That is, of course, assuming there ever actually was a Holocaust. If there wasn't, then never mind what I just said; the total Jewish death count would have to start from zero rather than resuming where it allegedly left off, at 6 million.

"Some might ask, how do we know that it was the Jews behind these horrific crimes against the white Gentile? That's a bit like asking, How do we know that Muslim Arabs were behind the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks? When the circumstantial evidence pointing to a particular ethnoreligious group is so compelling, there is little need to seriously entertain paranoid conspiracy theories about who else it could have been. Such speculation is ultimately just a Semitic ploy to distract us from dealing effectively with the issues at hand.

"We should keep in mind too that even if there are some moderate Jews who aren't directly involved in trying to undermine our country's values, it is still from the ranks of the moderate Jews that the more extreme Jews ultimately tend to come. This is similar to how many men who ultimately become jihadists start out as moderate Muslims. Even if their families and imams condemn their actions, they still paved the way for that radicalization to happen by instilling in them the core beliefs that made them more open to believing Allah wanting them to attack the infidel. The Torah promulgates a Jewish supremacist religion that, if taken to its logical conclusions, calls for subverting any society in which they find themselves, in their struggle to gain control and take what they believe is their rightful place in the world. It even condones genocide of those non-Jews who are peacefully trying to go about their own business. Those Jews who claim to be secular still belong to a culture that is strongly influenced by these ideas.

"Congress should investigate the ways in which Jewish bankers enriched themselves by trades related to the financial crisis of 2007–2008 that they engineered. It's not inconceivable that some of their ill-gotten gains were invested in some commodity such as precious metals, which would be compact enough that they could be discreetly buried underground. We must unearth these hidden caches of Jew gold so restitution can be made to those who were defrauded.

"Jews have so much control over the media and academic establishments that it becomes difficult to freely criticize Jewish influence in the government without being shut down. Many online accounts have been disabled by Facebook, PayPal, and other Jew-controlled tech companies due to alleged antisemitic 'hate speech,' i.e., going outside the bounds of political correctness in debating the Jewish Question. Therefore our ability to expose and hold government officials accountable for their complicity in Jewish self-dealing is under threat. We need to keep in mind that Jews' allegiance is first to their own tribe and not to our country or its principles. Jewish tendencies toward deceit, manipulation, and treachery are why so many countries have seen fit to expel them, and why the United States may at some point need to take measures to induce its Jewish population to self-deport.

"The FBI already has counterterrorism and counterintelligence units. The time has come to organize a countersemitism task force as well, to root out the enemies within. If the Jews were providing good leadership, then I might say, we should continue letting them running the show from behind the scenes; but since their leadership has produced such abysmal results, I think we have no choice but to drain the swamp and bring in new leadership. The Jews control what we might call the deep state, that part of the state that is unelected and therefore doesn't change from one administration to the next. It will take a concerted and determined effort to flush them out of those entrenched positions.

"It is my hope that the relatively moderate ideas I put forth for addressing the Jewish problem will resolve the situation effectively and thereby avoid the need for more drastic measures. Unlike the Keynesians, I don't believe in trying to stimulate the economy through the breaking of windows. Of course, although I myself prefer a peaceable solution, I can't control what some of the thuggish and militant elements of the alt-right, such as the Rise Above Movement or the Proud Boys, might be capable of if they feel like Jews are, instead of heeding warnings, continuing to behave in a provocative way.

"Jewish Scriptures are replete with examples of God's threatening the Jews with destruction if they don't stop their bad behavior. Ezekiel 33:11 says, 'Turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?' If it's okay for their own God to warn of impending doom if they continue on their wayward path, why can't the Gentiles issue a similar warning? We are so powerful as to be godlike in our ability to either rescue the Jew from any enemy he may face, or destroy him completely. And we should, if they persist in posing an existential threat to us. Many times, for their transgressions, they've had their nation taken away and been looted for everything they had, and it can happen again.

"Their own Scripture records that they did the same to many other 'heathen' nations they conquered -- the Hittites, the Girgashites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites -- destroying their altars, breaking down their images, cutting down their groves, burning their graven images with altars, massacring all the males, and taking everything of value (the cattle, the women, etc.) as spoils of war. The Israeli military actions described in the Bible would be considered war crimes if perpetrated today. The fact that they were powerful enough to get away with it was, to them, proof that God was on their side, and they praised God for their victories. What does it mean, then, if they are defeated and lose everything? For an answer, we can look to Black Hebrews make a Khazar Jew kid cry:

You was robbin' the Germans! You was takin' all the Germans' money! The Germans was sufferin'! You was oppressin' the Germans! You was oppressin' them! And God let them burn you the hell up.

The hell with the Holocaust. Six million people. How about 99 million black people? How about that? Can we be sad for 99 million black people? Can we be upset with 99 million black people? Who gives a damn about six million?

"Why did Hitler do that? Oh, boo-hoo-hoo!" The real Jews would be in mournin'. They wouldn't be jokes like this Khazar baby. They wouldn't be jokes like this cat, cryin' over some Holocaust. The real Holocaust is all these slave ships. That's the real Holocaust. A real Holocaust is 77 million North American Indians, man! Y'all don't care about these.

"Remember, friends, every country has the Jews it deserves, just like every homeowner has the cockroaches he deserves. Are you just going to complain that your kitchen is overrun by vermin, or are you going to call the exterminator? Stop wishing for things to happen, and start making things happen.

"Whites have as much of a right to fight for their existence as anyone else does. Whenever anyone threatens our life, liberty, or property, we can, without violating libertarian principles, do as John Locke suggested, and 'treat him as one who has put himself into a state of war with me- i.e., kill him if I can; for to that hazard does he justly expose himself whoever introduces a state of war, and is aggressor in it.'"

Larson also proposes, "We need to fix northern Virginia's transportation system by bringing in experts from countries with a track record of success in building quality infrastructure. This could include, for example, bringing in German engineers to speed up the flow of traffic by designing an American autobahn; and bringing in Japanese engineers to plan high-density residential areas and massive business districts that can support a workable mass transit system. We should also allow private turnpike companies to enter the transportation market, and we should get rid of Federal Aviation Administration regulations that get in the way of air transportation innovation.

"Aid to Israel consumes resources that could otherwise be devoted to fixing traffic congestion in northern Virginia. Therefore, when you're stuck spending hours staring at taillights, just remember, it's because of the Jews. If we were to have a holocaust, traffic would flow smoothly and commute times would be greatly reduced. We can bring manufacturing jobs back to America and reduce the trade deficit by creating a booming export industry for soap and lampshades."

Larson states, "We also need to completely abolish government schools so that the market can offer a wider array of educational options at lower cost. Republicans have talked about getting rid of the Department of Education; we need to actually do it. Instead of putting someone like Betsy DeVos in charge of the agency to undermine it from within, the chief executive should just fire all the Department's employees, and Congress should cut its budget down to zero."

Larson argues, "We should fundamentally restructure the government as a profit-seeking company in accordance with Curtis Yarvin's proposal for neocameralism, which he laid out in his treatise, Unqualified Reservations. Since owners will want to receive dividends and maximum the value of their transferable shares, they will have an incentive to look out for the long-term well-being of the country rather than plundering it for short-term gain, as so many interest groups have done."

Larson notes, "I chose to run in the 10th district because it is one of the whiter, more affluent, and competitive districts. Also, I'm familiar with the area from having lived there for several years while studying at Northern Virginia Community College and George Mason University and working as an accountant for companies in northern Virginia and D.C. The 10th district was where I cast my first vote, for Libertarian Robert A. Buchanan in 1998."

Quotations

It was to the merit of the Pan-German movement in Austria during the closing decade of the last century that it pointed out clearly and unequivocally that a State is entitled to demand respect and protection for its authority only when such authority is administered in accordance with the interests of the nation, or at least not in a manner detrimental to those interests.

The authority of the State can never be an end in itself; for, if that were so, any kind of tyranny would be inviolable and sacred. If a government uses the instruments of power in its hands for the purpose of leading a people to ruin, then rebellion is not only the right but also the duty of every individual citizen.

The question of whether and when such a situation exists cannot be answered by theoretical dissertations but only by the exercise of force, and it is success that decides the issue.

Every government, even though it may be the worst possible and even though it may have betrayed the nation’s trust in thousands of ways, will claim that its duty is to uphold the authority of the State. Its adversaries, who are fighting for national self-preservation, must use the same weapons which the government uses if they are to prevail against such a rule and secure their own freedom and independence. Therefore the conflict will be fought out with ‘legal’ means as long as the power which is to be overthrown uses them; but the insurgents will not hesitate to apply illegal means if the oppressor himself employs them. Generally speaking, we must not forget that the highest aim of human existence is not the maintenance of a State of Government but rather the conservation of the race.

If the race is in danger of being oppressed or even exterminated the question of legality is only of secondary importance. The established power may in such a case employ only those means which are recognized as ‘legal’. yet the instinct of self-preservation on the part of the oppressed will always justify, to the highest degree, the employment of all possible resources. Only on the recognition of this principle was it possible for those struggles to be carried through, of which history furnishes magnificent examples in abundance, against foreign bondage or oppression at home.

Human rights are above the rights of the State. But if a people be defeated in the struggle for its human rights this means that its weight has proved too light in the scale of Destiny to have the luck of being able to endure in this terrestrial world.

The world is not there to be possessed by the faint-hearted races.

— Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

I was definitely interested in libertarianism. You know, around the time of the stock market crash in 2008, I was searching for an understanding about what happened, and that actually led me to a lot of deep reading, particularly in the Austrian School, which I found to be the most radical version of libertarianism, so therefore the most interesting one. I have respect for Rothbard. I certainly have high respect for Hans-Hermann Hoppe. And so on. Lew Rockwell. Those people. Tom Woods is another guy who does some interesting stuff.

— Richard Spencer, Transcript: Richard Spencer Interview with James Allsup: “The Alt-Right’s Future in Trump’s America”

See also

• Frequently asked questions

Contact information

I can be reached by email at [email protected].

External links

• Congressional District 10 Profile, U.S. Census Bureau
• US House of Representatives District 10, VPAP
• Rhodesian Bush War | 3 Minute History, YouTube