Meet Nathan Larson! He’s the self-described “Red Pill Libertarian” hoping to represent Virginia’s 31st District as a State Delegate, and boy is he ever a peach.
Larson was convicted in 2009 of threatening to kill President Obama, having sent a letter to the Secret Service reading “I am writing to inform you that in the near future, I will kill the president of the United States of America.” Normally, this would preclude him from being able to run for office, as it was a felony and being able to vote is a requirement for running for office. However, Larson’s voting rights were restored as part Governor Terry McAuliffe’s program to re-enfranchise felons who have paid their debt to society.
Shockingly, that is not even the most disturbing part of Larson’s campaign. Not by a long shot!
Larson is most generously described as the “actual worst of the internet.” You know those manosphere douches we make fun of all the time — like Roosh V and friends? He is one of them! In fact, his campaign page — which is a wiki — frequently links to the Return of Kings Wiki, and also includes a statement on how he cosigns Roosh’s “Open Letter To Donald Trump.” One of the main components of his campaign is his opposition to feminism. Here, he explains what having taken “The Red Pill” means to him:
“A red piller is someone who recognizes and is aware of (1) the way that feminism, feminists and their white knight enablers affect society; (2) the dark truths surrounding human sexuality; and (3) hypergamy, women’s AF/BB strategies, society’s feminine imperative, sexual differences in emotional attachment, and women’s attraction to DT traits and sexual dominance/violence. The red pill is extremely politically incorrect, and one may expect reflexive social ostracism for even mentioning the Red Pill in polite society.”
For the unhep, “AF/BB strategies” means “Alpha fux, Beta bux” — which means that women, because we are all evil whores, sleep with “Alpha men” but take the money of “Beta men.”
Here are some of the issues he is campaigning on, which I do not recommend reading on a full stomach! Or at all!
Legalization of Incestuous Marriage
Larson believes fathers ought to be allowed to marry their daughters if that is what the father wants (Oh, daughters have no say in marriage in Larson-world, everything is arranged). He writes… “The potential to have incestuous relationships down the road could provide an incentive to produce offspring and to care for them as an investment in one’s own sexual future.” This is also a good thing for the daughters, he claims, because “A father will tend to be significantly older than his daughter, and therefore will be more likely to be a better provider, and less likely to beat her, than a man her own age.”
Legalization of Marital Rape
Larson writes:
Legalization of marital rape sends an important message, which is that frigidity is not a behavior that a husband need tolerate from his wife. The point is not that he should actually rape her, but that he has a right to if he wants to, since she is his property, given (or sold) to him by her father. This can help instill a proper attitude of submission, which will ultimately benefit her, since women like to be dominated. Not only that, but women will probably have an easier time getting men to want to marry them if they say, “Look honey, once we get married, you won’t have to worry that I’ll deny you sex, because you can just rape me whenever you want, and the law will allow it.”
Yes, surely that is a thing women will say. The main problem with dating today is for sure the fact that our dads can’t sell us to men who will rape us. I feel like I should note here that Larson, shockingly enough, is married, and someone should probably go check on his wife.
Abolition of Welfare
This, naturally, is also related to Larson’s desperate desire to subjugate women, as he believes that if welfare were abolished, women would be forced to marry nice guys like him in order to survive.
Abolish the 19th Amendment
Surprise! Larson does not think women should be allowed to vote, because it destroys the family unit if women are allowed to vote differently than their husbands. Also, women wouldn’t even be affected by government policies if they would just stop going to school and not get drunk and pass out at frat houses.
“What do women suffer from the state? Oh, they pass out drunk at a frat house, and get raped, and the government doesn’t process the rape kit. Why are they passing out drunk at frat houses? Because of feminism telling them that passing out drunk at frat houses is liberating and empowering, and that fathers and taxpayers should pay tuition bills to finance this happening. Get rid of feminism, and the problem is mostly gone.”
He also posits that maybe only physically fit men should be allowed to vote, noting:
“Political parties’ “get out the vote” efforts would involve encouraging their supporters to put down the fork and start lifting. The increase in testosterone flowing through the electorate could have an interesting effect on politics.”
Yes, that would surely be interesting.
Eliminate funding for women’s education
Women don’t need to be educated beyond an 8th grade level, claims Larson, in order to be a wife and mother. And if women are in school and college during their years of “peak beauty” and fertility, then that means that men can’t marry them during this time and make them wives and mothers to their own future wives.
Abolition of Child Protective Services
Well, naturally. Larson is also in favor of child neglect, noting that Murray Rothbard — favorite philosopher of the worst humans possible — said that a child has no natural right to their parents’ resources, so they should be able to starve them if they want.
Legalization of Child Pornography
Because it’s NOT FAIR that men can’t look at child pornography if that is what turns them on. It is only illegal because feminists hate boners, or something.
In his defense of child pornography, Larson actually cites 4chan’s Rule 34 of the internet — “if it exists, there is porn of it” — as if 4chan’s Rules of The Internet is some kind of legally binding thing.
***
Larson is currently engaged in a custody battle with his former in-laws over his 2-year old daughter, who was born after he became estranged from his first spouse, who later committed suicide. In written correspondence, he admitted to being attracted to both children and adults. He has been denied custody, thank freaking goodness.
In keeping with his “worst kind of people on the internet” persona, Larson is also a Murray Rothbard-worshiping “anarcho-captalist.” Anarcho-captalism — which is to actual Anarchism what National Socialism is to Socialism (or what American Libertarianism is to actual Libertarianism) — is the most popular philosophy among those who were profoundly affected by having read the Wikipedia summary of Atlas Shrugged at some point in college, and are not particularly smart but wish to pretend to be. They tend to enjoy Kool-Aid-manning into internet forums and comment sections to insist that taxes and social programs should all be abolished, along with the minimum wage and all labor laws and safety regulations, and that everything (including police departments) should be privatized, and that if that happened, all the poor people would be fine with starving to death and would not have any food riots or anything, because they would at least be able to die safe in the knowledge that rich people didn’t have to pay any taxes. They also, like Rothbard, tend to be Holocaust deniers.
While the Libertarian Party of Virginia has said they would neither nominate nor endorse Larson, and Chairman Bo Brown has said they are considering a motion to expel Larson from the party altogether — which would be a smart move on their part — Larson still feels he has a pretty good chance of unseating Republican Del. Scott Lingamfelter. Why? Because hey! America elected Donald Trump, right? So anything is possible.
I hate to say it, but he does have a point there.
[Fauquier Times | Larson For Delegate]
GIVE US MONEY! -
$5.00 Add to cart
