Miscellany:Larson for Congress/Press releases/2018.02.01-10

From Nathania, Nathan Larson's bliki
Jump to: navigation, search

Nathan Larson explains, "Why I am not a National Socialist"[edit]

3 February 2018 — Catlett, Virginia — Neoreactionary libertarian congressional candidate Nathan Larson today explained, "Here's why I am not a National Socialist.

"I have a few doctrinal differences with them. For one thing, I'm not as strictly against race-mixing as they are, since I favor unrestricted white male sexual privilege, and I like the idea of experimenting with new hybrids.

"National Socialists make a big deal about party discipline, while neoreactionaries have more of a freewheeling and laid back approach to ideas and behavior. If National Socialists were better-organized, then I might say that I'm impressed with what their party has been able to accomplish through their discipline; but thus far, I haven't seen a lot to be impressed by, other than some of their artwork. They basically are just living off of what Hitler and other original Nazis came up with. They had Noose for awhile, but it went defunct. So at this point, I don't see a lot of potential for them to continue dynamically generating new ideas, which is necessary if they're going to have a living doctrine that continually improves and remains relevant to the times.

"But this is partly by design. Hitler stressed uniformity more than evolution. For example, even if it were possible to improve the language in some of the party documents, he favored leaving them as they were, rather than getting in endless debates about what should be changed. He didn't want to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

"That's probably why he didn't favor race mixing, either. His priority was trying to maintain the quality of the race, rather than trying to improve it through cross-breeding. But as a pioneer, I'm all about creating new stuff rather than just following a formula that already exists. We have to continue evolving to meet the demands of a changing environment, or else we die. The risk is that some attempts at progress will take us backward rather than forward.

"Still, we learn from each social experiment, even if there are costs. I just find National Socialism a little too constricting for my purposes. But I'm not actively opposed to it, especially since it doesn't seem to really be doing any harm at the moment.

"I would ask National Socialists the same question I asked Muslims and incels: 'What are we going to do with all this red pill awareness?' Are you going to have sons and teach them National Socialism? Are you going to give your daughters to fellow National Socialists? If so, then maybe this movement has a chance to grow.

"As I see it, the first order of business is restoring the institution of the family, the basic building block of society. Familial solidarity, based on the patriarchal rule of the father, is key. You don't want to be one of these guys who says, 'I was planning on going to the right wing rally, but my wife said no.' On the other hand, you also don't want to be one of these guys who never has a family, or who loses his kids to frivorce, because the family is an important means of passing down genetics and culture."

Nathan Larson asks rhetorically, "What do we get in return for respecting females who reject us, and supporting the current socio-sexual hierarchy?"[edit]

Https---pics.me.me-did-you-know-men-who-respect-women-are-mostly-single-17099719.png

3 February 2018 — Catlett, Virginia — Neoreactionary libertarian congressional candidate Nathan Larson today asked rhetorically, "What do we get in return for respecting females who reject us, and supporting the current socio-sexual hierarchy?

"People are always asking, 'What's in it for me; why should I help incels get laid?'

"We could just as easily ask, 'Why should we respect females? What benefit accrues to us from that? Why should I support the current socio-sexual hierarchy, in which Chads outrank everyone, females outrank betas, and betas outrank incels?'

"Why would the man at the bottom of a hierarchy want to support that hierarchy, unless he's getting some benefit even from his humble place in that structure? Yet incels aren't getting pussy, and MGTOWs aren't getting to have a wife and family, so they're arguably getting no benefit that's worth participation in this society. To accept so much less than what one deserves, rather than refuse it and demand better, would be to show a lack of self-respect.

"Why would he want to respect his superiors when they don't respect him? Is it because they actually have merit and deserve respect and their privileged positions, while he himself is undeserving of respect? It's hard to respect females who ride the carousel and then frivorce their beta hubby, so that his heart is broken and their kids have to grow up without a father. It's also hard to respect the betas who tolerate females' doing this rather than changing society to give themselves the option of marrying a nubile virgin who would be required to be faithful and loyal.

"So that rules out merit. Are we supposed to have respect, then, because they're in a position to dominate us? In other words, we're supposed to have the same 'respect' that a little boy has for his unemployed, drunken father, because his dad might beat his ass if he gets annoyed?

"Well then, that only lasts for as long as they do in fact have that power. As soon as they lose that power, then perhaps the man who was at the bottom is the one who can dominate them and demand THEIR respect. So then the key is to get power. IHateCucks69 comments:

I think if you respect women you should get some kind of currency which can be converted into acts of sex - maybe an hour of being nice could be a few minutes of sexual intercourse.

Women are objects of desire and nothing more, let's be real - in the animal kingdom, if you see a female you mate with it. Simple as that.

"That niceness-for-sex exchange rate sounds about right, since a day of being nice to a woman would be worth an hour of sex. The only problem is that women don't actually want to be treated respectfully all day, every day. DailyDialectic remarks:

i was watching the cats mate the other day. the male cat doesnt give a fuck. it comes around, jumps on the female, bites on her fur so she cant get away then sticks his harpoon covered penis deep into her cunt and impregnates her. in fact, once he puts his little cat dick inside he cant even pul it out until he cums as he "jams" it inside of her until the retractment period. It's efficient, it works. Where did humans go so wrong

Nathan Larson asks rhetorically, "Why don't beta cucks have more animosity for Chad?"[edit]

3 February 2018 — Catlett, Virginia — Neoreactionary libertarian congressional candidate Nathan Larson today asked rhetorically, "Why don't beta cucks have more animosity for Chad?

"They too lost out in the competition with Chad for the youngest and cutest girls. Chad eventually wifed up a prime Stacy, but during his days of playing the field, he also fucked average-looking girls who, after they were older and more used-up, ended up being what beta cucks had to settle for. The beta cuck will have to deal with the baggage she carries from her relationship with Chad, and maybe she'll even continue sleeping with Chad or at the very least wishing she could be with him.

"Consider the 30-year-old post-carousel female who marries a beta cuck, and then divorces him five years later. Society will tell that man, 'You're the bad guy' and heap all kinds of shame and other burdens on him which he will receive no rewards for carrying (e.g. he has to continue supporting her and the kid, even though he's not getting sex or companionship from her anymore, or getting to see his kid, much less raise the kid together with her, as they had originally agreed at the outset of the marriage was what they would do). Yet he didn't really fuck over his fellow betas; by the time he got with that chick, she had already been ruined by Chad; and the only difference between the state she was in at the outset of the marriage, and the state she was in when she divorced him, was that at 35 she was probably finally too old and used-up even for betas to want to marry.

"Yet beta cucks reserve their animosity for incels and MGTOWs (many of whom are fellow beta cucks who get frivorce-raped). Why is that? What Chads are allowed to get away with doing is much more of a threat to betas' happiness. They are the ones who get with girls while those girls still have some potential, and then ruin that potential.

"I think it's because the red pill threatens to induce cognitive dissonance. Beta cucks just want to live a normal life, but in our society, that requires denying reality in order to cope. Incels and MGTOWs, having nothing to lose, don't mind taking and sharing the red pill. They can only gain from raising awareness and trying to overturn the established order to create a new order that's more favorable to them (and to betas, too). Chad probably is redpilled, but he sees no need to go around sharing the red pill because he has no ax to grind; life has been good to him.

"There are many forms of social coercion people have available to them, to enforce certain norms. The resources of the state can be used to enable females to dump their beta cuck husbands and still live comfortably; this puts her in a position of being in charge of the relationship, because he is the one at risk of losing his home, kids, etc. if she walks out. Men who either openly make "misogynistic" comments online, or get doxxed, can lose their ability to find employment. Or these men can simply be shamed and criticized and banned from online communities, so that their views are marginalized. Etc., etc.

"Why direct all these measures at MGTOWs and incels instead of Chad? They could use social coercion to stop Chad from banging all those young, virginal girls. Are they worried they don't have enough power to put Chad in his proper place (which, even if it's a place that's superior to theirs, still should not be quite as highly privileged as it is in our society)? What is so special about our modern era, that betas would be unable to demand a virginal young bride? In past eras, they were able to have that, in return for their contributions to society.

"Divorced men typically didn't marry a virgin. If they had, they probably wouldn't have ended up divorced. Yet society blames them for the disintegration of their relationship. That's bullshit; it was baggage from her prior relationship with Chad who caused that. Chad got the benefit of banging her when she was in her nubile prime, and didn't have to deal with the consequences. Yet Chad gets none of the blame for what happens later in her life; it's the hapless beta hubby who gets all that blame.

"It's like if you were to drive a car and never put any oil in it, so that it eventually ended up completely empty of oil; and then sell it to some dude who didn't know it had no oil, and then blame him when he drove it away and the engine burned up before he even got home. It's a reasonable expectation that you shouldn't have to check the oil level before driving a car away; he should have told you it was empty.

"Similarly, why isn't society telling men, "You shouldn't wife up non-virgins"? Instead, it's blaming men when they do wife up non-virgins and get stuck with the consequences. I think it's because a lot of betas already did marry non-virgins and they don't want to face the fact that they're cucks. They don't want to stand up and demand better, because it's easier for them to settle for what they have, since they've already invested so much in it."

Nathan Larson to evangelical Christians: "Stop telling biological parents to give their kids up for adoption"[edit]

2 February 2018 — Catlett, Virginia — Neoreactionary libertarian congressional candidate Nathan Larson today told evangelical Christians, "Stop telling biological parents to give their kids up for adoption.

"I talked to a lady yesterday who said that unwed mothers should give their kids up for adoption instead of getting an abortion. A better choice than either of those options would be for her to marry the child's father and raise the kid together with him. It might not be a bad idea in such instances for society to force the father to marry her, and it would be in accordance with the Christians' own Bible (Exodus 22:16 and Deuteronomy 22:28-29). If they say that's from the Old Testament and therefore doesn't count, they need to look again at Matthew 5:17-28.

"Kids need their biological parents more than they need a nice comfy suburban home with a 50" television and churchgoing adoptive parents who have been together for 30 years. Evangelical Christians are always complaining about 'unnatural' behavior such as two men having gay sex. But taking away kids from their biological parents to give to some other couple is what I would call unnatural, because there tends to be a natural affinity between parents and their offspring, even if the parents didn't initially want to have a kid.

"I know a mother who gave up her kid for adoption, and later complained that on Mother's Day, people didn't consider her a 'real' mother because she didn't raise her kid. I also was married to a woman who was raised by adoptive parents, and said that in her opinion it would be better if parents would either take responsibility for raising their own kids, or get an abortion. So not every kid raised by evangelical Christian adoptive parents grows up to be thankful that their mom didn't get an abortion.

"If the kid can't be raised by his biological parents, then he should at least be given to some other biological relative to raise. That would be better than giving him to a totally unrelated couple.

"The family is basically a unit with two missions: (1) improve and propagate its genes and (2) improve and propagate its culture.

"Improving genetic quality comes about by bringing in new blood that's of high quality, and experimenting with new mixtures to try to come up with a superior hybrid. Improving culture comes about by coming up with new ideas, trying them out, and either rejecting them as harmful or accepting them as helpful and incorporating them into the familial culture. The family history that's passed down is the story of new blood and new ideas that were brought in and what happened next. It's a laboratory report of tests that were carried out, serving as an inspiring narrative of accomplishments and a set of warnings about what happens when one goes down certain paths that are wrong.

"Since experiments are expensive, there ends up being conflict among family members about what new blood and what new ideas should be accepted. Maybe the family culture is based around a religion, and someone wants to convert to another religion. Maybe someone goes gay, or has an incestuous relationship, and people say, 'That goes against our familial mission.' Within the family, the way discipline is usually enforced is by the patriarch's (or patriarchal figure's; it could be a matriarch, if she's the one with the power) saying, 'While you're using my resources, you'll do x.' (Typically, the use of a shared pool of resources is more efficient than if each family member were trying to live independently.) Or they'll use force (spankings, time-outs, etc.) to command obedience, although that only works unless/until the kid is able to gain his freedom, since it's a punishment for bad behavior rather than a reward for good behavior.

"It also happens that one family will try to advance its mission at the expense of another family. So for example, an evangelical Christian family's snatching away another family's biological child (through CPS, or by browbeating a teenage mom into giving up her kid for adoption) could be an instance of that. Of course, that interferes with the biological family's trying to give the child their own culture. (It wouldn't necessarily be the teenage mom raising the kid on her own; even if the biological father refused to marry her, she might have had other male relatives, or some beta cuck, who would've been willing to play a fatherly role.)

"But evangelical Christians tend to think their own culture is superior; it's part of what makes them so evangelical. They think they're the only ones who can save people from hell. They also think they have wisdom from God about the best way to raise kids, which is superior than any wisdom that man could come up with. But even the Bible acknowledges that biological family matters, and that you don't have to be a good Christian to know how to take care of your kids (Matthew 7:9-11):

Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone? Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent? If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?

"The church is sort of like extended family except that the families in the church aren't necessarily tied to each other by blood or marriage, and there's a stronger patriarchal leader imposing a common culture and helping organize the tasks of nurturing the members, as well as those outside the church. Also, it typically has a mission of spreading its culture by encouraging its members to evangelize and/or bear a lot of children. The benefits of belonging to the church can also bring people in, as people see it's a place where they can form social and business connections, and make a difference in the world by participating in charity, missionary work, and so on.

"The church has a coolness factor but like the family, it's going to expect something in return for what it gives. It's going to want tithes, and allegiance to its culture. It's going to reserve to itself the right to impose discipline that could result in your losing everything you put into the church. Since it's not held together by blood ties, it's probably easier for the church to say, 'You're excommunicated' than it is for a dad to disown his son for going against the familial culture, because there isn't that conflict between the goals of propagating genes and propagating culture. Although the church may try to help its members pass on their genetics as a reward for their service and to help grow the church, the church isn't usually trying to pass on a common set of genetics, so it can focus more on ruthlessly demanding adherence to culture.

"The nation is like a large family, if it's tied together by a common ethnic identity; or if not, it could just be another church, except this time it's a theocracy because you have to either belong to it and pay tithes (aka taxes) and follow certain parts of its culture, or go to jail. For example, if you get caught engaging in father-daughter incest, not only could you lose certain privileges (like getting to go near schools, playgrounds, etc. which are typically funded by the state), but you could go to the slammer. So then it's a question of whether you're going to try to make your familial culture prevail against that of the nation, and maybe become accepted as a legitimate option (so that the family becomes a laboratory of patriarchy, much as a U.S. could be a laboratory of democracy) or give up the fight.

"You could theoretically vote with your feet, but good luck finding a first-world country that's okay with father-daughter incest. One might say, that shows that father-daughter incest is incompatible with civilization; but it would only take one counter-example to disprove that. According to David Dobbs, royalty often used to mate not only within their own family but with those outside the family as well, to hedge their bets:

Inca ruler Huayna Capac (1493-1527), for instance, passed power not only to his son Huáscar, whose mother was Capac's wife and sister, but also to his son Atahualpa, whose mother was apparently a consort. And King Rama V of Thailand (1873-1910) sired more than 70 children—some from marriages to half sisters but most with dozens of consorts and concubines. Such a ruler could opt to funnel wealth, security, education, and even political power to many of his children, regardless of the status of the mother. A geneticist would say he was offering his genes many paths to the future.

It can all seem rather mercenary. Yet affection sometimes drives these bonds. Bingham learned that even after King Kamehameha III of Hawaii accepted Christian rule, he slept for several years with his sister, Princess Nahi'ena'ena—pleasing their elders but disturbing the missionaries. They did it, says historian Carando, because they loved each other.

"Granted, those aren't really first-world countries, but one has to wonder, was Christianity (including its ban on incest) what enabled white civilization to take over the world, or could whites have done the same with a pagan religion? Greece and Rome did pretty well without Christianity. Interestingly, Judith Lewis Herman notes with regard to Leviticus 18:6-18:

In patriarchal societies, including Western society, the rights of ownership and exchange of women within the family are vested primarily in the father. These rights find their most complete expression in the father's relationship with his daughter. In every other relationship, the rule prohibiting the sexual use of female relatives is reinforced by the claims of other kinsmen. Thus incest with the mother is most strenuously forbidden, because it is an affront to the father's prerogatives. Incest with a sister is also an offense against the father's rights, which in this case do not include the right of sexual use but do encompass the rights of ownership and exchange. Similarly, the aunt and cousin are forbidden because they belong to the uncle; the sister-in-law and niece because they belong to the brother, the daughter-in-law and granddaughter because they belong to the son, and so forth. But the daughter belongs to the father alone. Although the incest taboo forbids him to make sexual use of his daughter, no particular man's rights are offended, should the father choose to disregard this rule. As long as he ultimately gives his daughter in marriage, he has fulfilled the social purpose of the rule of the gift. Until such time as he chooses to give her away, he has the uncontested power to do with her as he wishes. Hence, of all possible forms of incest, that between father and daughter is the most easily overlooked.

It is no doubt for this reason that the biblical injunction against incest omits any specific reference to sexual relations between father and daughter, while almost every other conceivable branch of the incest taboo is explicitly named and condemned . . . .

The biblical law is addressed to men. It is assumed without question that men initiate and women submit to sexual relations. The wording of the law makes it clear that incest violations are not offenses against the women taken for sexual use but against the men in whom the rights of ownership, use, and exchange are vested. What is prohibited is the sexual use of those women who, in one manner or another, already belong to other relatives. Every man is thus expressly forbidden to take the daughters of his kinsmen, but only by implication is he forbidden to take his own daughters. The patriarchal God sees fit to pass over father-daughter incest in silence.

"People often point to Charles II as an example of the results of inbreeding, but without some kind of genetic analysis, it would be hard to say whether his abnormalities were caused specifically by incest or were just random birth defects."

Nathan Larson answers Walter Fate's critique of his /r/RapeVictimTears proposal[edit]

2 February 2018 — Catlett, Virginia — Neoreactionary libertarian congressional candidate Nathan Larson today answered Walter Fate's critique of his /r/RapeVictimTears proposal.

"I guess he has a point that /r/Incels itself serves as an /r/RapeVictimTears," Larson noted. "Later on in the video, he points out that incels put all women in a catch-22 by saying that if they seem shy or awkward, it's because they're waiting for Chad; but if they actually have sex with Chad, that means they're sluts. This is true; incels will never be happy till women have sex with incels. Even if women do nothing at all but sit around simply existing, incels will have a problem with that because in their view, they're supposed to be spending their time opening their legs to incels.

"In a later video, he quotes a comment I made about how men will marry non-virgins because they think they've been mistreated by previous guys and want to save them. Victor Pride also notes this phenomenon in 'How to Pick the Right Wife', 'If you think she needs help or that you are helping her and she is changing then you are being foolish and you are being played. It's going to end badly for you when you get hitched to a woman like this.'

"Anyway, Walter Fate expressed skepticism about whether men think that way, but I myself can relate to thinking that way (although it perhaps wasn't the decisive factor in why I chose the woman I chose as my second wife; there were other factors as well). I doubt I'm the only one."

Nathan Larson reminds incels, "Every reaction (or lack of reaction) you get from females means they want you to rape them"[edit]

1 February 2018 — Catlett, Virginia — Neoreactionary libertarian congressional candidate Nathan Larson today reminded incels, "Every reaction (or lack of reaction) you get from females means they want you to rape them.

"If she acts sweet and pleasant toward you, but then when you try to escalate to sex, she resists your advances, that means she was initially trying to signal she liked you and wanted your dick; but then when you went to close the deal, she didn't want to seem like a slut, so she said 'no, stop, help, rape'. But of course she actually does want you to have sex with her, or she wouldn't have been friendly toward you to begin with. So, you better rape her, so she doesn't get disappointed and file a rape accusation against you in retaliation for sexually frustrating her. (Remember, Disclosure was based on a true story.)

"On the other hand, if she acts like a total bitch toward you from the get-go, that means she's trying to enrage you into proving your manhood and demonstrating dominance over her by putting her in her place through rape. Might as well give her what she wants, or she'll just keep escalating her bitchiness till you get the hint.

"If her behavior toward you is neither agreeable nor disagreeable, but just kind of neutral and indifferent, then that probably means she's too distracted by other concerns to really pay much attention to you. She needs you to help her focus by dragging her away to a secluded place and pinning her down and raping her. That will make her forget her problems at least till you finish thrusting into her and leave her there with your cum dripping out of her pussy.

"It could also be that she's just not that into you, but unless she gives you a strong signal either way, it's hard to tell, so just to be safe, you better rape her. That's what your natural impulses are telling you to do, right? Better listen to them. (New Age chicks are always telling us that we need to pay attention to what our bodies are trying to tell us, so that's a good opportunity to reply, 'Judging by this boner I'm getting, it seems my body is telling me you're pretty sexy in the hippie outfit, and that I should go ahead and rip it off of you and force myself into your pussy.')

"Besides, if she isn't into you, that means the only way you're going to get her pussy is through rape. It's not your fault that she put you in that position where you literally had no choice but to either take her by force or do without. You were the victim in the situation, and you were only acting in self-defense against the sexual deprivation she was imposing on you against your will. You had to show solidarity with the masculinist cause by striking a blow against the matriarchy which sought to stifle your sexuality and compel you to be incel, at least with regard to that girl who wouldn't open her legs for you."