Frequently asked questions

From Nathan Larson for Delegate
Jump to: navigation, search

This is a list of frequently asked questions.



About the campaign[edit]

Why did you choose the particular issues you have listed on your website, as the focus of your campaign?[edit]

By default, I focus on issues that resonate with me because of personal life experience interacting with the state in those areas, or because I know someone with such experience, or because I sometimes take an interest in offbeat policy topics and like to research and theorize about them. If, while campaigning, I repeatedly get questioned about other issues (such as abortion or immigration), I may address those as well.

Why are you running for Delegate?[edit]

To restore, strengthen, and defend the family. Our family laws have gotten worse and worse over the years, and we need a voice for change. Neither Delegate Lingamfelter nor any of the Democratic candidates seem likely to be that voice.

What are your prospects of winning?[edit]

After seeing Donald Trump defeat Hillary Clinton in the 2016 Presidential election, I have to conclude that anything is possible in politics. You never know when there's going to be a black swan event.

I'd say there's also a strong possibility that I'll outperform the big-L Libertarians (if any) who are running this year. That usually seems to be how it goes when a radical libertarian runs. They tend to attract more attention and support among the extremely disaffected and disgruntled portion of the citizenry that is angry enough to say "a plague o' both your houses" to the Democrats and Republicans and vote third party.

Are you aware that a lot of your ideas will be very unpopular?[edit]

Maybe they'll be unpopular, maybe they won't be. Sometimes there's a silent majority that disagrees with the more politically correct views propagated in the media, the schools, etc.

But pushing unpopular ideas can be a form of leadership. Looking at the opinion polls and going with what's popular is followership. Therefore, in a lot of cases, it would be a misnomer to say that our politicians are "leaders."

If you're an anarcho-capitalist, why don't you stress that more in your campaign?[edit]

Would it be better if I just came right out and said explicitly, "Let's abolish government" and focused the campaign on that ultimate and comprehensive goal, rather than focusing on dismantling the parts of government that promote a harmful feminist agenda? Arguably, but that's a marketing and messaging decision that's up to the discretion of the candidate (in setting up his platform and outreach materials) and the Party (in choosing whether they want to get behind the candidate).

I ran a radical campaign back in 2008, but now my attitude is, "Been there, done that," so I wanted to try something new. I wanted to theorize a bit about the cultural implications of libertarianism, with regard to relations between the sexes, because that's increasingly been an area of interest for me over the past 2-3 years. This is an experimental campaign, as I'm not aware that there's ever been one quite like it before, at least not in our time.

Part of the problem is that the LP is not a particularly vibrant and active movement at the moment, relative to some other movements, such as the alt-right and the manosphere, that have been emerging lately, and addressing the issue of feminism and the Red Pill. Much of the antifeminist and Red Pill thought, therefore, that has been propagated, has an alt-right rather than libertarian flavor to it. The problem is, I'm too antifeminist for the tastes of most of those in charge of the LP, but I'm too libertarian for the tastes of most of those in the alt-right and the Red Pill, so therefore I don't really fit into either movement. This means I'm essentially on my own.

I can either borrow their ideas and presentation, which causes it to take on the tone of one or the other of the two movements at the expense of the other, or singlehandedly come up with the whole doctrine of Red Pill Libertarianism from scratch. When I try to blaze that trail and present my ideas to either movement, in hopes of getting this new movement started, people tend to reject it and say "You're out of place here," rather than breaking away to join me. So it's just easier to fall into the groove of what already exists, even if it doesn't perfectly suit my purposes.

The downside is that it runs the risk of confusing people, which in some ways could be counterproductive. It remains to be seen whether the pros of this style of campaign outweigh the cons. Running an explicitly anarcho-capitalist campaign has its downsides too, because you're constantly having to deal with the objections that it's way out there and too radical, which becomes exhausting, especially if you don't have a lot of other radicals helping you. Being part of a active movement, even if it's an imperfect movement, gives you more of the support you need to keep going.

Rothbard didn't always focus on the ultimate goal of anarchy either, but sometimes would say what the government should do (e.g. lower taxes, slash regulations) if it's not prepared to push the button and take that ultimate step.

This campaign is not only a political campaign but also a cultural campaign, intended to change society by influencing what choices people make in their personal lives. Every campaign is partly cultural. For example, when Donald Trump told an audience of college students not to use drugs, he was using his political campaign for a cultural purpose.

So when I say, for example, that we should cut funding for women to attend college, part of my implied message is, "Fathers, don't send your daughters to college." It's not all about changing government policy.

Is this campaign a joke?[edit]

In the sense that I'm giving voters the opportunity to choose me if my views and agenda line up with what they want more than any other candidate in the race, it is a serious campaign. If elected, I would indeed serve, and I would cast my votes on legislation in a libertarian manner. That's not to say that I don't ever say anything semi-satirical or tongue-in-cheek, or as a thought experiment (aren't most innovative policy proposals thought experiments in a way, since you're challenging people to refute the points you're making?), but even then, there's often a serious point to be made. Consider, for example, the candidacy of Deez Nuts.

In a way, every third party campaign tends to be intended mostly to make a point. Lew Rockwell correctly points out, "The LP was not founded to get people elected to office. It was founded to oppose the regime and educate the public, and use elections as the vehicle to do so. The American system of government and elections is set up and managed to accommodate two parties. The idea of becoming a third party was only to underscore the evil and trickery of the system."

He also notes, "Political parties are quasi-official agencies within the fabric of the State. They exist to create the appearance of free entry into the sector of power. No outsider has been able to crash them unless the outsider agreed to play along. . . . Many good people have run for office, and many activists have performed heroically. The problems for the LP come about when the people running the party begin to think of themselves as vying for power as versus being an educational organization that uses the structure of elections as a venue."

That's not to say that a libertarian candidate couldn't get elected. There just has to be a confluence of the right candidate in the right place at the right time.

But you know, it's almost hard not to be flippant sometimes when one looks at this society, and how marriage has become a game or a joke. What is marriage? It's just an excuse to play a dress-up game and be prince and princess for a day like in the fairy tales. Behind the superficialities, what really makes it tick is the age-old exchange of money for sex. Without that, all you are left with is a piece of paper with an exit clause that says, in pertinent part, "A divorce from the bond of matrimony may be decreed: . . . On the application of either party if and when the husband and wife have lived separate and apart without any cohabitation and without interruption for one year. In any case where the parties have entered into a separation agreement and there are no minor children either born of the parties, born of either party and adopted by the other or adopted by both parties, a divorce may be decreed on application if and when the husband and wife have lived separately and apart without cohabitation and without interruption for six months."

That's it. That's literally all it is. Everything that marriage has been built up to be, and thought to mean, just boils to one big delusional oneitis that ends with the stroke of a pen a year after the husband loses his job, or the wife feels unhaaaaaappy and wants to go eat, pray, and love, or what have you. With the rise of blue pill and grrl power, the masculine and the feminine are mostly gone, and what is left is androgyny in which neither party really needs the other, or is satisfied by the other, that much. Anthony D'Ambrosio has some interesting thoughts here.

The New Atheists wonder why religion has had such stubborn staying power, despite all that Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, and Dennett have written. They chalk it up to the frailties of the human mind. Well, yes, there is some of that, because American students typically don't go through any rigorous course in logic which would train them to more readily identify fallacies.

But it's also because people look at the Catholics, Mormons, etc. and see healthy, traditional families to whom marriage still means something. Notice I say "they see"; I mean that those families are able at least to function well enough to keep up appearances, despite the dysfunctions that are mostly hidden from the view of the casual observer. That's always going to be an advertisement in favor of religion, and not only that, it's always going to be a means of producing (not just recruiting) more Christians. Yeah, those religions definitely have their dark sides, and a lot of overhead and busywork involved in their practice, but marriage too is a religion where blind faith in what doesn't seem to make any logical sense is sometimes essential, given the lack of social constraints on bad behavior and social encouragement of good behavior within, and with regard to, marriage in today's society.

Religion supplies the blind faith; I'm not sure what other source there is, other than that other monotheistic religion, oneitis, which in women is described in terms such as "first love." Yet the first love has been corrupted from being "The One" to being the alpha that produces alpha widowhood.

I look at an article like the recent Wonkette piece and think, "If you took any of these commenters' lives and put up for public display the same kinds of intimate details as what I've revealed about myself, or that others have revealed about me, you'd probably find their lives are just as weird, or at the very least, absurd." It's just hard to take this society seriously, when in so many ways it reveals that its intent is not serious on the purposes that it claims to be directing its efforts toward.

Are you going to finish "How I would have voted"?[edit]

I would need to work on it at a rate of about 25 bills per day in order to complete it by Election Day. I think I could do it if I really had to, although I have to admit, these bills tend to be pretty boring.

Are you aware that no one will support you if you condone adult-child sex?[edit]

It's important to note, I only condone sex between adult men and young women in the context of marriage that has been agreed to by the woman's father. At any rate, pedophiles are just another interest group, with a certain number of votes and campaign donations to put behind their cause. People have sometimes told me, "If you support adult-child sex, people won't vote for you," to which I've responded, "What about pedophiles? They might." There's no law saying that in the privacy of the voting booth, you can't take a candidate's pro-pedo views into account or even cast your vote based on that single issue.

If I can just get the vote of every registered voter who would like to have sex with kids, then that alone should enable me to get more votes than a typical third party candidate.

Why does that vintage artwork that you use for your site's logo have a girl who is wearing pants rather than a dress or a skirt? Isn't that unfeminine? Also, shouldn't they have more than one kid?[edit]

Yes, but I use this as a reminder of how even in a society that has hitherto maintained traditional values, cultural decay can still creep in by subtle means if we let down our guard. Good observation, by the way; I was testing to see if anyone would notice, and you passed. The other thing is, in a 135px logo, you don't really have room to show a whole bunch of family members.

If you have a replacement vintage Americana illustration logo to suggest, though, featuring a more traditional look (preferably involving one or more hourglass figures), feel free to post your nomination.

Now that you mention it, that is starting to irk me a bit. Plus I think it's better to use illustrations rather than people, so you avoid some of the uncanny valley.

Is America ready for a candidate who openly supports father-daughter incest?[edit]

They elected Donald Trump, didn't they?

Don't you think you have too much baggage (criminal record, etc.) to be running for office?[edit]

Not really. The key is to put it all out there and own it. Most politicians are lawyers, which probably influences their inclination to withhold information as much as possible, thinking this will protect them. That's how Hillary Clinton ended up in an email scandal that may have destroyed her campaign. That strategy of being opaque may work in court but it makes terrible public relations.

As an activist, my tendency is to put as much information out there as possible for the sake of transparency. Nobody can claim, "Here's a breaking scandal," because if anyone didn't notice it up till that point, it's their own fault for not checking thoroughly.

The Libertarian Party of Virginia, for example, may be annoyed at me for calling myself a libertarian (which I am; no one can take that away from me), but one thing they can't say is that I didn't reveal everything to them before I sought their nomination.

I sometimes tell myself, "The baggage is not a distraction from the campaign. The baggage is the campaign." The story of one's life and the lessons learned along the way can be instructive to others, and have political implications in some cases. For example, false rape accusations are very politically relevant to our times.

It is the role of a libertarian candidate to be what Ayn Rand described as "The Face Without Pain or Fear or Guilt," or in the words of Dr. Ferris, a fictional villain in Atlas Shrugged:

The guiltless man. I mean that there is no way to disarm any man except through guilt. Through that which he himself has accepted as guilt. If a man has ever stolen a dime, you can impose on him the punishment intended for a bank robber and he will take it. He'll bear any form of misery, he'll feel that he deserves no better. If there's not enough guilt in the world, we must create it. If we teach a man that it's evil to look at spring flowers and he believes us and then does it — we'll be able to do whatever we please with him. He won't defend himself. He won't feel he's worth it. He won't fight. But save us from the man who lives up to his own standards. Save us from the man of clean conscience. He's the man who'll beat us.

I have made my life an open book so that there is no way anyone can try to intimidate me by threatening to drag anything from my past into the public eye. I have already put everything out there, and in so doing, also had the opportunity to to preempt my adversaries by being the one to make the first opening statement in the court of public opinion, speaking in my own defense against those who would accuse me of anything.

Are you having fun with this campaign?[edit]

Yes. I found it got a lot better after I got past the part where I was petitioning on cold, rainy evenings, trying to control the flapping of the pages in the wind and get people to sign before the petitions got soaked to the point that the pen would rip through the paper. But y'know, that's what you call paying your dues.

If you had to do the whole campaign over from the beginning, what would you change?[edit]

I would probably go back to my default behavior, which is to present my ideas with an explicitly anarcho-capitalist flavor, rather than an alt-right flavor, since anarcho-capitalism is the ultimate destination I want society to reach. I would find some way to work antifeminism into that theme, but it would be only a minor focus rather than the major focus, as it is now. I think I hung out in the manosphere for so long, and had so little contact with radical libertarians (do they even have much of a community anymore, outside of Facebook?), that I got used to playing to that audience. Lately, though, I haven't been active in that community, and the only person from the manosphere I still communicate with is also a libertarian, so that side of the coin is more of an influence on me than it was.

However, one thing about running this campaign in the way I have, is that it has really revealed Libertarians for what they are. That is one seriously cucked party, to respond the way that one would expect social justice warriors to respond, rather than the way one would expect serious intellectuals to respond. I had not realized that feminism had so deeply affected/infected them, to the point that they would turn on their own in that way.

I've been around the LP for awhile now. Some of these newcomers to the State Central Committee, such as Andy Bakker, I was helping before they even knew I existed, working behind the scenes to put their candidacy information on the website. (He was running for Delegate in the 46th district a couple years ago, and now that I look into it, he actually did fairly well, although that was probably because the voters knew his Republican opponent, Sean Lenehan, didn't stand a chance.) Others, like James Curtis or Corey Fauconier, I haven't talked much to, but I've sat the same table as them during meetings, or helped campaigns that they were involved in. When this kind of situation comes up, they have nothing to say to me directly, but just work behind the scenes to oust me. It strikes me as odd. It doesn't seem like how I would do things, if I were in their place.

But I guess that's what happens when you pretty much get labeled as a non-person. That's basically what a pedophile (although I don't consider myself to be a pedophile) or a mentally ill person (although, as mentioned above, I don't consider myself to be that either) is regarded as — someone in a completely separate class, to be treated differently than you would treat anyone else.

I'll tell you another thing — moderate Libertarians view Gary Johnson as someone who attracted a lot of positive attention to libertarianism, but the (admittedly small sample of) libertarian-leaning voters I talked to on the campaign trail thought that dude was pathetic, and they didn't accept the excuses that have been made for his "Aleppo moment". When he was Governor of New Mexico, his views on pot reform were ahead of his time (given the prevailing sentiment among other elected officials), but now he's no longer on the cutting edge.

Are there any parts of your platform that you have mixed feelings about?[edit]

Quite a few, actually. I think it would be tragic if some hypothetical high-performing, genius woman were to not get a chance at reaching her potential. It's clear that such women do exist. At the same time, I acknowledge that these women are not the norm, and that society would be better off recognizing that they're not the norm. Also, it's possible that such women really are wasting some of what they have to offer the world by not reproducing as much as they can while they're in their fertile years. I also find it really disappointing that there aren't more female Libertarians (a lot of whom don't even have any kids to take care of, or anything like that) willing to step up to the plate and run for office and show us what they do, if they really want to demonstrate that they can do as well as any man.

I say, if you don't believe in sexism, then go ahead and show me that I'm wrong. Otherwise, I'm going to stick with my belief that women apparently are just not as motivated toward that kind of goal as men are, because what other conclusion can I reach, based on the evidence?

Do you think any other candidates are going to enter the race for Virginia's 31st House of Delegates district?[edit]

They should. There's still plenty of time to gather 125 signatures. If the Libertarian Party of Virginia doesn't think I'm libertarian, why aren't they putting their own candidate on the ballot, so they can say to the voters, "We'll show you what a true libertarian looks like?" Probably because they lack the strength and will to recruit a candidate from among the many Libertarians in this district and put resources behind him. (It would actually not even be that hard to, if necessary, find a Libertarian in another district and have him establish residency in the 31st for purposes of running here, if they really wanted to.) It seems that when it comes to the 31st district, they can only tear down; they can't build.

What about the Indy Greens; where are they? This district includes part of Woodbridge, and I'm sure they favor building high-speed rail from Woodbridge to DC. They could try to sell that issue to the voters, if they still believe in it. I would love to see how, if asked the question, they would relate the issue of high-speed rail to relations between the sexes. I'm sure they could come with something; they always do.

Who do you think is going to get the Democratic nomination in the 31st House of Delegates district?[edit]

I initially wrote:

I'm not an expert on Democratic Party politics, but I have a feeling it's going to be Sara Townsend. Among her advantages are that she's a good fundraiser and she's probably more well-known. Plus she has already run before, so she has experience. Of course, that could also work against her in a way, because she lost last time, but it wasn't a blowout. She got almost 47 percent of the vote. Not quite as good as McPike in 2013 (a gubernatorial election year), but better than Coffey in 2011 (41.21%), Day in 2007 (44.47%), Brickley in 2003 (45.01%), or Krause in 2001 (44.00%).

The only thing I would say she should watch out for is that, while going for the doctorate may be the logical next step in her career, bragging too much about her accomplishments at the university could make her seem more ivory tower and detract from that smart but down-to-earth middle school tilf image that she'd probably be better off cultivating. She should do herself a favor and delete her social media in favor of blogging and meeting the voters in person. Facebook can only hurt her by making her seem narcissistic and arrogant.

Do you see Scott Lingamfelter using Facebook? Nope! He spends his time exchanging emails with constituents.

Or he used to, before he apparently won enough successive elections that he got complacent and slacked off. It's a real shame that, from what I can tell, all or most Virginia politicians these days are not putting much time and effort into constituent service. I didn't agree with Frank Wolf on many issues, but I had to admit, he was diligent about responding to every single letter in a way that directly addressed the topic at hand (rather than with just a generic statement of thanks for writing). His devotion to constituent matters was fanatical, and unmatched by any politician I've seen since.

Since then, a friend of mine wrote described Townsend's attitude, or her voice anyway (as manifested in her International Women's Day statement), "Rah rah but I'm not really into it. I am just sublimating since no man has swept me off my feet onto his motorcycle, rode off into the sunset, then got all up on me, fucked me silly again and again, and impregnated me with blast after blast of his potent seed. But since I've given up on that, going door to door at least runs out the clock on my empty childless sexless existence. . . . . It's like she says the words of grrlpower but she just ain't feelin' it."

I also noticed that Guzman seemed to have more gusto and dynamism, at least, judging by appearances, anyway. My guess is that Townsend, like me, started out full of energy, enthusiasm, and maybe even purpose, but then it waned. She's been defeated before by Lingamfelter, and probably wanted to give it another try in more favorable circumstances, but likely won't mind yielding to a more determined and impassioned competitor like Guzman. It's unsurprising that Tia Wright endorsed Guzman rather than Townsend, since black women tend not to like white feminists too much (although apparently they prefer them to white socialists like Bernie Sanders).

What do you think about Elizabeth Guzman?[edit]

Side by side.png

Guzman writes, "Thank you Univision-News! It is amazing how Donald J. Trump's prejudiced, anti-immigrant, anti-woman rhetoric is inspiring so many Latinas like myself to run for public office. I am running to be the first Hispanic woman in the Virginia Assembly, because I want to stand up for the thousands of people across my district and millions more across my state who feel like their diversity is not represented in Richmond. I need YOUR help to make a difference!"

I don't know how much that message is going to appeal to the whites who make up 64 percent of the district, but you never know. She also writes:

The recent national discussion about immigration has made me think a lot about my own history as an immigrant. I am the granddaughter of Peruvian farmers who turned a small piece of land into a successful business built upon the values of fair pay and equal opportunity. While my grandparents grew vegetables and raised cattle my aunt and uncle now grow grapes (pictured here).

There are countless farmers and small business owners, like my relatives, who dream of moving to America and bringing their businesses with them, but Donald Trump refuses to let them in, because he thinks all immigrants are dangerous, drug-dealing criminals. We must stand up against this prejudicial injustice, not only because it is wrong, but because we as Americans stand a lot to gain from the skills, labor, and economic impact many immigrants can bring to our nation. #stopimmigrationraids #itistimeforchange

That almost makes me want to vote for her, because I like a candidate with a strong pro-immigration message. (But of course, why vote for her when there's already a candidate on the ballot who would vote on all issues in the way that I would prefer?) But I think she should more explicitly stress the advantages of immigration for the consumer. Not everyone cares about the businesses that immigrants start, from the standpoint of wanting to apply for those jobs at the laundromats and Chinese restaurants. But we all benefit from being able to buy fruit, houses, etc. at a lower price because of their labor. In addition, when she says "businesses" she should point not only to those involving less-skilled labor, but also the high-tech companies like Google that were founded by immigrants. The voters can't be reminded often enough that 40 percent of Fortune 500 companies were founded by immigrants or their children.

Why should people vote for you, given that independent and third-party candidates rarely win? Wouldn't that just take away votes from a major party candidate whom they might prefer to the alternative?[edit]

Let's assume a given voter is an antifeminist. He or she sees that on the ballot, there's Lingamfelter, me, and whichever Democrat (either the moderately feminist, Hillary-boosting Townsend, or the anti-Trump feminist Guzman) wins the primary. Wouldn't voting for me just help throw the election to the Democrat?

Well, let's suppose it comes down to, say, Lingamfelter getting 46 percent, me getting 5 percent, and Townsend getting 49 percent of the vote. That still sends a message that the antifeminists are in the majority, even if no particular antifeminist candidate gets a plurality. In fact, it sends a stronger antifeminist message, because it shows that 5 percent were willing to go radically antifeminist.

As a practical matter, Lingamfelter is not that much better than Townsend anyway. Under either of them, we're going to see men's rights steadily being eroded, and the institutions of marriage and the traditional family will continue their decline. True, it might happen a little faster under Townsend.

But we have to think beyond what will happen over the next two years. We need to think too about building a movement in the long term. That means showing as much support as possible for radical antifeminists who have a message that we should not only hold the line, but also start pushing back and reversing feminism's advances over the past couple centuries. When you're fighting a war, you don't do anything halfway, or you end up with another North Korea or Vietnam. Once you've decided to go to war, you need to give it your all and completely destroy the enemy's ability to counterattack, rather than settle for halfway measures.

Ask Lingamfelter; I'm sure he'll tell you what happens when you stop at the 38th parallel rather than pressing for total victory. Even though, with the Soviet Union boycotting the United Nations Security Council, there was unity in the international community behind the American side in the Korean War, a lack of determination to finish the enemy off is what ultimately led to the current situation in which Kim Jong Un is able to continue threatening South Korea. So those who say that antifeminists should come together in getting behind Lingamfelter should keep in mind that unity can sometimes be overrated. Aggressiveness and thoroughness can count for more.

You do want to see more radical antifeminists being emboldened to run in future elections, don't you, so that they'll help get the antifeminist message out and help push the Republicans in a more radically antifeminist direction? I thought so. But we need your help. Cast your vote in a way that's going to help build the antifeminist movement, and give it legitimacy and support.

What would you do if you were Lingamfelter, and trying to win this election?[edit]

I would say that he should do exactly what he did last time, in that when Townsend gets uppity, he should treat her like a bratty little kid whose mouth needs to be washed out with soap. He doesn't even need to make any antifeminist remarks; he gets the point across just by doing that. He needs to maintain frame and show he's a strong man who can easily dismiss her attacks; and I'd say, based on what we've seen in the past, he's up to the challenge.

Although I wouldn't cry if Townsend defeated Lingamfelter this year, since I think he's been a weaker leader than I would've liked when it comes to fighting back against feminism, I also would get a certain satisfaction out of seeing him spank Townsend hard in yet another election. There's just something pleasurable about seeing an older man administer some firm discipline to an unruly (but cute) woman who's young enough to be his daughter. It's going to be like Fifty Shades of Fauquier and Prince William County Politics. Rule 34, baby!

Should feminists be glad that you're running?[edit]

I think so. Without an antifeminist in the race, what excuse do they have to put forth their feminist arguments? In order for them to try to play the hero, they need a villain to fight against. It's like the restaurant scene in Scarface:

What you lookin' at? You all a bunch of fuckin' assholes. You know why? You don't have the guts to be what you wanna be? You need people like me. You need people like me so you can point your fuckin' fingers and say, "That's the bad guy." So... what that make you? Good? You're not good. You just know how to hide, how to lie. Me, I don't have that problem. Me, I always tell the truth. Even when I lie. So say good night to the bad guy! Come on. The last time you gonna see a bad guy like this again, let me tell you. Come on. Make way for the bad guy. There's a bad guy comin' through! Better get outta his way!

Who do you think is going to win this year's 31st House of Delegates district election?[edit]

Well, like I say, anything can happen in politics, especially given this unusual political climate that brought Donald Trump to power.

American girls be like 02.jpg
The harder I push as a radical candidate who's willing to say anything that comes to his mind (much like Donald Trump), the more I think I'll be a wild card potentially affecting the outcome. When you're an independent or third party candidate, you really have no choice but to go hard if you're going to have any relevance, because you're facing such a disadvantage from the get-go. It's reminiscent of how women want a guy who's not only going to provide for them and protect them, they also want a guy who'll make them laugh. A lot of times, they'll even bang the guy who boldly flirts with them and seems more exciting and mysterious than the nerdy guy with a 9-5 job. When you're in my position, you have to not only put serious views and uncomfortable truths out there, but also be entertaining.

Otherwise, you fall flat, like Bill Redpath has repeatedly done. It's a pity, because he has a lot of good ideas (including his interactive representation idea), and the resources to get on the ballot statewide. I think when you're a third-party candidate, it's also an advantage to be young, as Robert Sarvis was. I encourage libertarians in their twenties and thirties to consider running for office before they get so old and established in their careers that they say, "I don't have time for this." Get into politics while you're still young, reckless, and impetuous. Run for office while you still have the courage of your recently-gained convictions. As you get older, there's more of a tendency to say, "Well, I can see both sides"; when you're young, you're more likely to put your foot down and say, "Enough of this! I know what's right!" and want to take up arms against the forces of evil.

After all, you have several decades of life ahead of you, so you have more of a future to invest in. Once you have kids and whatnot, it's easier to say, "I'll just nurture the next generation and let them take care of all these problems I'm leaving them with." When you're the kid, you're the one about whom your elders have said, "I'll leave these problems to his generation to take care of." The responsibility then falls on you, and it is up to you to rise to the occasion if you want to avoid repeating this cycle endlessly.

Looking at the demographics of this district, I would imagine it's only becoming more and more unfavorable to the Republicans. Lingamfelter needs to hope he can keep winning elections long enough to make it to the next redistricting. Given that this year is the last gubernatorial election before the Census, and given Townsend's performance last time, this may be the most imperiled he's been since McPike ran.

But that's not necessarily saying much. He has, after all, survived for 15 years. I'm not sure how much the pro-Trump sentiment is going to benefit him, but if he can find a way to harness that, then he'll probably get a lot of votes, at least from the Fauquier side of the district, which unfortunately for him is not very populous. There's also a lot of anti-Trump sentiment on the Prince William side of the district, but you have to keep in mind, those are Democrats, and often a younger crowd that doesn't do as well at turning out to vote.

Still, when I was walking those yuppie precincts near the intersection of Dumfries Road and Spriggs Road, the validity rate on the signatures I was gathering was about 82 percent. So people are definitely registered over there. It's just a question of who's going to actually turn out. There were a fair number of Libertarians in that area, too, and the Libertarians you see tend to be pretty ardent, with their Pine Tree Riot and Gadsen flags flying. I see that in Catlett to some extent too.

What happens if feminists just ignore you?[edit]

Strategically, that might be the best option for them. But where's the fun in it? Where's the challenge? Where's the opportunity to present and defend the feminist ideology comprehensively? Unfortunately, feminists are not known for being the most fun-loving, open-minded, and intellectually inquisitive people, so it may indeed play out that way. C'est la vie.

I guess the way they look at it is, they've been suffering under the burden of patriarchal oppression for so long that blah blah blah. Whatever. We've all been oppressed. Even those at the top aren't really free; they have to live their lives according to the dictates of popular opinion and social convention in order not to lose their position. Look at that antifeminist oppressor Milo Yiannopoulos and what happened to him for bucking feminist orthodoxy. The cucks in his own news organization threw him out.

It kinda reminds me of evangelical Christians who feel that they're oppressed, even though almost every high government official is a churchgoer. Even Donald Trump, who seems borderline agnostic, has to pretend that the Bible is his favorite book. Society is just a big tangled mess of people oppressing one another and forcing one another to conform with their standards. Therefore, despite the rhetoric that even I put forth, if you get oppressed, it doesn't necessarily mean that you're at the bottom and your oppressors are at the top. Nor does it mean that your way of thinking has been wholly rejected by the powers that be. Chances are, some of your beliefs are part of their philosophy.

As Ludwig von Mises put it, the ideologies accepted by public opinion "are mostly an eclectic juxtaposition of ideas utterly incompatible with one another. They cannot stand a logical examination of their content. Their inconsistencies are irreparable and defy any attempt to combine their various parts into a system of ideas compatible with one another."

That's how we end up, for example, with gays trying to get accepted into the dying institution of marriage, which was long since eviscerated by divorce and by family laws that treat bastard and legitimate children the same and give parents the same rights, regardless of marital status; or feminists trying to get men prosecuted for having sex with a woman who got drunk on purpose because she likes drunken sex. People try to score ideological points by getting a wedge in the door for their agenda however they can, even if the end result doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Still, whatever happens, this website will remain a handy reference and, hopefully, an inspiration for future antifeminist campaigns. Ever hear of California Proposition 19 (1972)? Probably not. It was a ballot measure that was way ahead of its time, to legalize pot in California. It got rejected by a two-to-one margin, but served as practice for future campaigns. The cannabis reform movement went through some dark times, most notably the 1980s, but now is well on its way to victory even in Virginia.

Whether feminists ignore me or not, antifeminists can still vote for me if they want. So now we get to see how cucked the antifeminist movement is at the moment, or how ready they are to begin supporting antifeminist political candidates. The results, I think, will be a barometer of that, although if past experience is any guide, they'll also probably reflect the extent to which people see Lingamfelter and Townsend as different from each other, and how competitive they perceive the election to be.

What's your campaign schedule looking like right now?[edit]

Probably what's going to happen is that, now that my ballot access petitioning is done, I'll rest on my laurels for awhile, and fill out candidate surveys and answer a bunch of emails asking me about abortion and immigration. Then around September or October, the media will suddenly take an interest again in the campaign. The funny thing is, it's often the day after the election that people start looking at the campaign website, because they think, "Who was that Nathan D. Larson I saw on the ballot?" and google my name. Then they blog or youtube about it.

Is this campaign going to have any merchandise?[edit]

It should. Some kind of T-shirt with a catchy phrase would be good. Maybe it could have some vintage artwork on it.

What issues in this campaign do you think will attract the most attention?[edit]

I've noticed that the idea of marrying one's own daughter has drawn some attention. This reminds me of how I once wrote an article (apparently just a copy-paste of legislation, actually) for free liberal about Virginia legislation whose effect was to shut down teen nudist camps, and the editor (Kevin Rollins) told me that it was attracting quite a lot of hits ("the number one search term that brings people to the Free Liberal website is 'nudist kids'"). I think that is because there are men everywhere googling "teen nudists" and anything and everything else that has to do with teenage girls. Ever notice how popular Barely Legal, "Just Turned 18," etc. themed magazines and websites have been? Men of all ages want to bang teenage girls (preferably bisexual teenage girls; "lesbian" is another popular search term). Society can try to shame them for feeling that way, but they have that desire all the same.

Wouldn't you get more support from the manosphere if you dropped the pedophilic stuff from your platform?[edit]

The manosphere goes hard, but I go harder, because I'm just gangsta like that. I go harder than anyone I know, much less anyone that you know, okay? At any rate, I rest easy knowing that no matter what I say, at least Roosh won't disavow me, because he doesn't disavow anyone.

Sometime I want to make a video where I'm standing in front of a crowd extolling Roosh's virtues and end with, "Hail Roosh V! Hail our people! Hail victory!"

What about those who say that you're a terrible ambassador for the red pill?[edit]

You mean like some of these guys? (It's reassuring, by the way, that they didn't go full-cuck over at TRP like the LP did, but rather stood strong against concern trolling).

I would ask, why aren't they going out there and serving as ambassadors? Show me how it's done, if you know a better way. Go get a piece of foam board, clip some ballot access petitions to it, and go knock on some doors telling people your ideas and gathering signatures.

Problem is, moderates often don't have the passion needed to motivate them to do what I've done. Moderates also tend to be more boring and therefore attract little notice.

But the moderates have their role and I have mine. It works this way in other movements too. Consider, for example, Jack Kevorkian and Philip Nitschke. Nitschke is doing great work; in fact, I'm a life member of his organization, Exit International. But Kevorkian also had a role to play. His obituary said, "Dr. Jack Kevorkian, who died last week at age 83, was a crank, an obsessive, a deeply eccentric loner, and a publicity hog. He also was a hero. There is a connection. Cranks move the world; polite, modest, unassuming people with measured views usually don't."

Do you worry this campaign will make people oppose felon reenfranchisement?[edit]


I did see this tweet and this video by Ed Gillespie. First of all, the fact that this guy is sitting around creating Facebook videos suggests to me that he has very little chance of becoming Governor. It's possible that Democrats will be more reluctant to reenfranchise violent felons going forward, but they're going to have to balance the risk of looking bad by reenfranchising people like me, with the prospect of losing the violent felon vote. My guess is that Gillespie's use of me as an example is not going to win anyone over to the idea of keeping violent felons disenfranchised; his supporters already oppose felony reenfranchisement.

Second, not many felons will be running for office; I'm definitely an outlier. But even if we do run, we can't get elected unless the voters choose us. If we do get elected, that says a lot about the quality of the major party candidates. You can't blame their failure on us. It's your job to put forth competition that can defeat the felons who aspire to high public office. Third, what is the point of being reenfranchised if we're not going to use our franchise by, for example, running for office?

And by the way, felons can still run for federal offices, even if you disenfranchise us at the state level. Yet I don't see that causing any major problems.

If I had to guess, what'll happen is that in the future they'll do an "individualized review" of violent felony cases, which means that guys named Tyrone Washington who stabbed a dude behind a dumpster when a drug deal went bad will get their rights restored, and guys named Nathan Larson who threatened the President won't get their rights restored.

Another possibility is that they'll restore the right to vote, but not the right to run for public office. It wouldn't surprise me if they also stop restoring the right to serve on a jury.

Would you ever consider dropping out of the race?[edit]

I don't believe in doing that, since it sends a big "fuck you" to your supporters and diminishes your credibility as a person who can stick to his goal and his beliefs under pressure.

If men don't vote for you, is that a shit test failed?[edit]

I think so, although it could also be tactical voting. At this point, I would say we should encourage strategic voting instead.

What's your response to those who say that you should've informed the voters about your felony record?[edit]

There was an article that seemed to suggest perhaps I had misled people by omission or something. If people had asked, "Have you been convicted of a crime?" I would've told them. But they didn't ask. And I didn't really see it as relevant. I figure, my rights were restored for a reason.

The petitioning process always has been a little absurd, by the way. Voters are expected to decide, on the basis of a very brief interaction, whether they want to sign a petition. If they say, "I want to research this before I sign," the petitioner probably isn't coming back; he's just going to move on to people who will give him the benefit of the doubt and sign right away. It's a numbers game; it doesn't even really pay to spend a long time conversing with people about politics, when one could be walking to the next door and getting a signature.

The press also doesn't cover any candidates who haven't already obtained ballot access, because they figure, those candidates haven't even yet demonstrated the ability to pass that basic test of competence and resources, so the campaign isn't yet newsworthy. This ensures that the voters have very little information to go on till the petitioning process is over. It's like the situation with the Affordable Care Act, in which "we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it".

If you want a better ballot access system, then we should set up some kind of online signature process that will let people research the candidates and sign petitions at their leisure, rather than being rushed to make a snap decision. It's unrealistic to expect that candidates, or their volunteer or paid petitioners, are going to take upon themselves the burden of telling the voters all the reasons why they might not want to sign, when the voter didn't even ask for that information.

If I've poisoned the well for other candidates who might seek the voters' benefit of the doubt while seeking ballot access, oh well. That just goes to show that the system is broken. It shouldn't have to rely on a voter's ability to judge the person who's standing in front of them by a few seconds' observation of their appearance, demeanor, etc.

What are some similarities and differences between this campaign and your 2008 campaign for U.S. House?[edit]

In both cases, I ran a Libertarian campaign motivated by an idea that I wanted to bring before the voters that they hadn't heard before. In both cases, the campaign ended up becoming an anarcho-capitalist campaign. In 2008, the idea was delegated democracy; in 2017, it is the red pill. In both campaigns, I was out of work and living off of savings that enabled me to go petition.

In 2008, though, by the time I created my campaign website, my platform had stabilized and I was pretty comfortable with keeping it the way it was. This time, I did a radical reboot.

So what explains the reboot of your campaign?[edit]

After the March 2017 fast, I decided it was time for a fresh start. Actually, I suspected all along that I was going to end up rebooting the campaign, because the way in which I was putting forth my red pill message was watering down the anarcho-capitalistic component more than I was comfortable with.

Now, maybe I could've run a red pill anarcho-capitalistic campaign from the get-go. And maybe I should've, because it could've given inspiration to future red pill anarcho-capitalist campaigns, and perhaps attracted less hostility from anarcho-capitalists.

But I just find that it's hard to get people to accept or even process more than one new radical new idea at a time. It's like you have to pick, either anarcho-capitalism -or- the red pill -or- something else.

However, it would've been interesting to have explored more explicitly, how would red pill ideas be implemented under anarcho-capitalism? Part of the problem, though, is that the interactions and intersection between anarcho-capitalism and patriarchal culture haven't been explored all that fully and there's no community behind it yet.

Since I was prioritizing the red pill over anarcho-capitalism (since I had already run an anarcho-capitalist campaign back in 2008, and wanted to do something new), and the current red pill community in which I've been involved leans alt-right, my campaign ended up taking on somewhat of an alt-right flavor or tone. But I guess it never really hit their radar.

Did you cuck out?[edit]

Yeah, pretty much. I surrendered the way James Lander did. When you make that kind of capitulation, you're surrendering unconditionally.

Saul Alinsky writes, "If you start with nothing, demand 100 per cent, then compromise for 30 per cent, you're 30 per cent ahead." What I did was not a compromise. I got nothing except what any force gets when it surrenders unconditionally, which is a quick resolution. There's no more siege; you open the gates of the city and the next phase of your life (or death) begins. Maybe they will slaughter the whole population; you have no guarantees.

But the goal is to at least move on to a different kind of attack, and the attacks did sort of end. Now I sit at home and am mostly ignored. My livelihood has been destroyed and I'm not sure when or if I'll get that back.

Was there anything in the Libertarians' behavior that surprised you?[edit]

Yes; I've actually never been treated that way by Libertarians before. But they've been taken over by feminists, SJWs, etc. just like the ACLU has been. It's essentially a "progressive" organization now. They may as well endorse Bernie Sanders.

It's a good reason never to buy a lifetime membership in any organization. I usually have regretted doing that, because the organization ended up taking stances that I disagreed with. Come to think of it, I ran into the same problem with Reform Sex Offender Laws. They too seemed to get taken over by feminists and to endorse stuff like Romeo and Juliet laws that I disagreed with.

What did you think of BJ Brown's candidacy in this race?[edit]

I liked her campaign, but obviously it was mostly a single-issue, paper campaign. Her platform called for addressing the ADHD overdiagnosis epidemic. Lingamfelter is now going to make a token effort to address that, but unless she comes back in 2019 and runs against him again, the issue will probably be dropped at that point. She needs to demonstrate she has staying power.

The bottom line, though, is that parents need to be the line of defense against overmedication of kids. And the kids themselves can also help put a stop to it by refusing to take the meds, or at least strongly objecting to it. They can also take action to get kicked out of school if they want.

Do you accept campaign donations?[edit]

Generally no, since it's not worth the trouble of campaign finance reporting and figuring out what campaign-related stuff I might spend the money on. But if someone wanted to anonymously help fund my weed habit by sending me some cash through the mail, that would help take the edge off.

About feminism and relations between the sexes[edit]

How can a person who favors taking away rights from women be libertarian?[edit]

Not everything that is called a right, is actually a right that the person is entitled to. In Man's Rights: The Nature of Government, Ayn Rand said that with regard to a suggestion that someone has a right to an education, we can make the issue clear by asking, "At whose expense?"

As an anarcho-capitalist, I ultimately favor abolishing the state altogether and having all services be privately funded. That is the purest form of libertarianism.

Murray Rothbard writes that "government activity must be reduced whenever it can: any opposition to a particular cut in taxes or expenditures is impermissible, for it contradicts libertarian principles and the libertarian goal." This means that as a libertarian, I cannot oppose cutting government expenditures on schooling for young women. If others say that the state must educate women, they are actually the ones speaking contrary to libertarian values.

Rothbard also writes, "the libertarian's concern should not be to use the State to embark on a measured course of destatization, but rather to hack away at any and all manifestations of statism whenever and wherever he or she can." Advocating an end to funding of education for women is a form of hacking away at manifestations of statism. Of course, if someone were to say, "We should cut state funding for educating young men," I would have to support that too.

There's also nothing in libertarian theory that says women have (or anyone else has) a right to vote. So if I advocate repealing the 19th Amendment, that's neither libertarian nor unlibertarian. It's just a change in the structure of an organization that radical libertarians say should be abolished altogether anyway.

John Locke writes, in The Second Treatise of Government: An Essay Concerning the True Origin, Extent, and End of Civil Government: "But the husband and wife, though they have but one common concern, yet having different understandings, will unavoidably sometimes have different wills too; it therefore being necessary that the last determination, i.e. the rule, should be placed somewhere; it naturally falls to the man's share, as the abler and the stronger."

Libertarian theory (specifically, chapter 14 of The Ethics of Liberty) holds that children do not have the same rights as men, but rather must be held in stewardship by adults. Much has been written in the manosphere about the childish nature of women. The question is, which are women more like, in terms of the amount of guardianship they need — men or young children? Throughout history, the answer has usually been the latter, and I think the results of the feminist experiment show that view was correct. But I'm a moderate on this issue, not going so far as to question the humanity of women and thereby invoke Chapter 21 of The Ethics of Liberty.

Some argue that raping one's wife violates the nonaggression principle. Walter Block, though, has argued that one can sell oneself into slavery. Matthew Hale noted, "But the husband cannot be guilty of Rape committed by himself upon his lawful wife, for by their mutual matrimonial consent and contract the wife hath given herself up in this kind unto her husband which she cannot retract." Some scholars have argued that normally a contract isn't enforceable by specific performance in this way, but I would argue that marriage is different than other contracts, because remedies such as divorce don't fulfill the goal of keeping the family together.

But I don't rely on such arguments; I instead attack the application of the self-ownership principle to women.

By the way, there are a lot of Libertarians who deviate from orthodox Libertarian doctrine. For example, there are Libertarians who believe abortion should be illegal. They aren't kicked out of the Party as heretics, though; their different interpretation of libertarian principles is tolerated, even if it is in direct conflict with the national platform.

What is your argument for why libertarians should reject feminism and embrace patriarchy as part of their ethical philosophy?[edit]

This is a little like asking, "What is the argument for why we should embrace a libertarian rather than socialist ethical code?" The reason is because libertarianism works, and socialism doesn't. If experiments with socialism showed that socialist states could feed, clothe, shelter, entertain, etc. the masses as well as capitalism could, and produce a higher level of happiness, then probably we would embrace socialism. Why wouldn't we?

Similarly, if giving women equal rights as men actually benefited women, it would be hard to argue against it. We would need to integrate feminism into our libertarian theory, as most theorists have already done. The problem is that it isn't working.

I'm open to the idea that much of what needs to accomplished in order to restore the natural order of male dominance and female submission can be done through cultural rather than legal change. But the legal system does need to accommodate the possibility of such arrangements, and not encourage the opposite behavior. Right now, it doesn't even take a neutral stance; it's blatantly biased in favor of female dominance and male submission.

Isn't rolling back the reforms that the feminist movement fought for regressive rather than progressive?[edit]

Not every innovative policy and cultural change is "progress." Some changes prove to be bad ideas that need to be rolled back. The propaganda depicting patriarchy as archaic is similar to how Microsoft had a marketing campaign to get people to upgrade to Windows Vista. But Vista, like feminism, introduced a lot of regressions, and people were better off sticking with Windows XP (or even switching to Linux, like I did) till Windows 7 came out.

Taking women out of the home and putting them in the workplace was a social experiment. At the time, it seemed to many people like a good idea. After many antifeminists warned that it would be disastrous, the experiment was allowed to go forward anyway, and now the results are in. Women are unhappier, the fertility rate is lower, and more children are being born out of wedlock. The legal and cultural institutions, such as marriage and the family, that once protected and nurtured children, are crumbling.

Sometimes, as with alcohol prohibition, society is willing to admit that an experimental policy was a failure, and get rid of it. Other times, as with cannabis prohibition, people dig in their heels and refuse to admit that it's not working. Then there ends up being a protracted fight over it.

In pointing out what you perceive as women's faults, aren't you making sexist generalizations, and potentially offending people?[edit]

It's really hard for me to sympathize with that argument, when feminists, or even women who don't call themselves feminists, so often have felt so free to openly make sexist generalizations about men, or to disparage or belittle individual men in ways that they would never tolerate a man speaking about a woman, or women generally.

Now you might say, "That's a tu toque fallacy." But just the fact that so many women behave that way is grist for my mill, when I argue that women, if given power, are not going to use it in a fair way, or in a way that will benefit relations between the sexes. Some of the abuses that feminists and the women they enable have perpetrated on men, usually through the system they control, have been outrageous.

Men and women don't have equal rights now, and they never will. One will be in charge of other. Either men will rule over women, or women will rule over men. And the biological facts that tend to naturally produce a certain division of labor between them, with men being leaders and women being followers — or that will produce misery if some other arrangement is attempted — can't be ignored. That's not going away, regardless of whether I speak or stay quiet.

Bear in mind too, there's a difference between being anti-feminist, and anti-woman. If feminism is making women miserable, then it's not anti-woman to oppose it.

By the way, if anyone wants to point out that men have certain weaknesses or faults, compared to women, I'm totally fine with that. For example, it's a fact that more men than women are criminals. I'm not offended if someone points out statistical truths, or what they've observed. But if people are going to be allowed to do that, then I should be allowed to make my own observations as well.

Doesn't it seem like your policy emphasizes the rights of husbands, rather than addressing the rights of wives, such as the right to be provided for and protected?[edit]

Ideally, the father is supposed to choose a husband for his wife who is a good provider. If he fails, then he will be punished for that in a Darwinian manner. Polygynous marriage, though, will help make it possible for there to be enough good men to go around to every woman who wants one; plus, men who don't provide for their wives will tend to have trouble attracting additional wives, so that is another incentive for men to be good breadwinners.

Anything that makes marriage fairer to men also potentially benefits women, by making men more willing to enter into marriage. It's like how, if a restaurant starts offering better burgers, that indirectly benefits them by getting customers to patronize them more.

Does it bother you that your rhetoric could turn off some female Libertarians?[edit]

Dominance doesn't turn off women; to the contrary, it excites them, as long as it's being asserted by a Real Man™. Remember The entire basis of feminism summed up.

Anyway, they need to either submit, or GTFO. If we allow them to be the ones dictating the Party's actions, as opposed to just providing gastronomical support, that's a shit test failed, and we'll suffer the consequences. They need to be put in their place. In the Radical Libertarian Party, there will no women allowed, except in roles that are totally and clearly subordinate to men. As soon as women are around, blue pill men feel the need to white knight, which is a problem.

If all the female Libertarians who objected to my being nominated by the LP were to resign, the Party wouldn't be worse off. Women tend to be followers and cautious conformists, and what we now is some leadership and bold deviance from the norm.

I'm a strong and independent woman, and I like it that way; where do you get this idea that women want to be dominated?[edit]

As Rollo Tomassi writes:

Dominance is much more than making demands and issuing commands. I display it in my speech (even my silence), the way I dress, the status of my career, my attitude towards people on either end of that status spectrum, my tolerance and my intolerance, etc. As Men we have a tendency to think that the more overt our displays are the more women will take notice, but women are far more sensitive to the nuances of our actions than most could imagine. A little goes a long way, and what we think are useless gestures are often the most memorable for women. . . .

Women don’t like overt dominance, just as they don’t like overt objectification or adoration. It’s when it’s covert that they respond most favorably – women love to be objectified, dominated and adored, but only by men who know better than to remind her of it. I’ve always advocated the positive effect of maintaining an ambient threat of competition anxiety with women, but this form of dominance cannot be an overt display. Dominance must be playing in the background, only occasionally being amplified as situations warrant. Women need to know it’s there, but her imaginations of that masculine dominance are more useful to a man than a constant, present, overt reminder of it.

If I overtly say that women want to be dominated, that will tend to provoke an objection. That doesn't make it less true. Keep in mind too what Whisper wrote, that "our healthy instinct to protect was once in harmony with women's healthy instinct to respect men and obey male leadership. Why do you think feminists have to froth at the mouth so much about not being led or dominated by a man, ever? Because they are secretly tempted just like any sane woman, that's why."

When women push back against male authority, I also have to keep in mind that this could be a shit test.

What do you think of feminists?[edit]

I think they are misguided, yet I also take inspiration from the strength that many feminists have shown. I view them in the same spirit that Donald Trump viewed Hillary Clinton when he said, "I will say this about Hillary. She doesn't quit and she doesn't give up. I respect that. I tell it like it is. She is a fighter. I disagree with much of what she is fighting for, I do disagree with her judgment in many cases, but she does fights hard and doesn't quit and she doesn’t give up, and I consider that a very good trait."

Oh wait, maybe strike out everything I just said above. I forgot, women are generally not supposed to be the leaders, and men are generally not supposed to look to women for their examples.

Once a movement becomes the Establishment, I take less of an interest in it, because it will then be merely defending the gains that have already been made, and maybe even impeding further progress; and I am a dissident by nature, always looking for the most unpopular causes and people to examine for good qualities that others may have missed.

Is there a place in patriarchal theory for women who don't really have what it takes to be monogamous, and will end up cheating on whatever husband they marry?[edit]

You mean damaged, promiscuous women with daddy issues, who are in the demographic that tends to become strippers and whores? That's like asking, is there a place in libertarian theory for those who suffer from such severe psychosis that they can't participate in the division of labor.

Normally, what is supposed to happen is that the father gives his virgin daughter to the man who will become her husband. It doesn't always play out that way, though; there are some women who run away from home and end up having a lot of random sex with men whose names they may not even know.

Although theoretically, the father still has the right to be her guardian, possession is nine-tenths of the law, and market forces will tend to allow the woman to continue renting out her body on a short-term basis for as long as it is still a marketable commodity. Eventually, she'll have trouble doing that anymore, but damaged women tend not to be long-term thinkers.

The desire for sex is as powerful as the desire for drugs, and the war on prostitution has failed as badly as the war on drugs. The part of me that believes in harm reduction would say, we should have legalized prostitution so that the harms associated with being part of the underground economy will be removed. By that logic, though, one could also make the same argument that Mary Ruwart made, which is that we should also allow children to willingly take part in child pornography production, in order to reduce people's incentive to force children into taking part in it. Few Libertarians would go that far, yet the argument does have some validity.

As a practical matter, the thousandth guy who has sex with a woman probably doesn't cause any significant drop in her SMV (she already had the thousand cock stare long before she reached that point numerically), so I doubt he could be sued for much by her father.

Like psychotic people in a libertarian society (or any society, for that matter), damaged and promiscuous women in a patriarchal society (or any society, for that matter) tend not to be very important. They're not usually the ones who are giving birth to, and nurturing, men who will become great leaders of the world, because chances are, a strong father figure will be absent from their father's life.

Just like people don't tend to care much about the rights of the severely mentally ill getting trampled, people probably are not going to care much about the rights of damaged, promiscuous women getting trampled either. You have to offer some long-term value to other people or to the world in order for people to care about you enough to want to invest in you.

I notice, by the way, that even ancient Israel, which was a pretty patriarchal society, had prostitutes. (Some of them, such as Rahab, were even in Jesus's lineage.) The Old Testament doesn't even seem to address their situation much; it's as though it doesn't really care. In the New Testament, Jesus points out when a woman is promiscuous (see, e.g., John 4:17-18), but other than that doesn't make a big deal about it. It's mostly Paul who comes down hard on prostitutes and those who have sex with them (see, e.g., 1 Corinthians 6:15).

At the moment I don't have an incredibly coherent answer to this question; those are just some thoughts I'm throwing out there. I would reach out to the manosphere for input, but I think I've already used up my ability to do that.

In thinking about the proposal Roosh laid out, though, in Women Must Have Their Behavior And Decisions Controlled By Men, it seems like women wouldn't be able to carry out basic transactions, like opening a bank account or signing binding contracts, without the consent of her father or husband. So in that situation, she would be similar to a runaway teenager. That would have the upside of deterring her from running away to begin with, but if she did run away, it would probably expose her to more danger.

How do you know that traditional sex roles are what men and women naturally gravitate toward, and are good at, rather than what they often end up in simply because of social pressures and expectations that they have internalized?[edit]

There may be a grain of truth to the "social conditioning" angle. But there are also a few biological facts to consider.

Fact #1: Women's peak beauty and fertility is in their late teens or early twenties, right when men would be going to college and building their careers. If she's going to have the maximum chance of producing healthy offspring, she needs to have kids at an age at which she would, if she followed the typical man's path, be starting her career or preparing to start it.

Fact #2: Women can breastfeed their kids, and men can't. Therefore, a woman who wants to have both a career and kids will need to either pump her milk and

Fact #3: Men tend to be stronger than women, which suggests in our evolutionary history, there was a division of labor in which men were the ones doing the heavy lifting. If the division of labor manifested in these physical traits, why wouldn't it also manifest in psychological traits? (Okay, that's a mixture of fact and hypothesis, but still...)

Maybe there are more facts that I could list, and maybe there aren't.

Do you acknowledge that women have some strengths that men don't have?[edit]

Balzac wrote, "In devotion woman is sublimely superior to man. It is the only superiority she cares to have acknowledged, the only quality which she pardons man for letting her excel in."

What do you think of female-run antifeminist groups like Les Antigones?[edit]

Many antifeminists probably think that it's good to get women fighting against feminism, since women will have more perceived legitimacy in claiming that getting rid of feminism is for women's own good. The problem is that it puts men in the position of saying, "We can't solve this problem without the help of women," which isn't masculine. Men have primary responsibility for civilization-building and for protecting women from threats to their well-being, including from feminism. It's also men's job to put women (including feminist women) in their place. That's one of many ways in which they can show strength (both individually and as a group) and fitness as reproductive partners.

In 1984, O'Brien said, "We have cut the links between child and parent, and between man and man, and between man and woman. No one dares trust a wife or a child or a friend any longer. But in the future there will be no wives and no friends." That sounds a lot like the future we've been headed toward, with the breakdown of the family and increasing social isolation, which I suspect is going to be even worse in Generation Z. Restoring, strengthening, and defending the family will depend also on building male friendships so that men are once again providing positive encouragement to each other and help in being the best men they can be.

What is it about men that makes them more suitable than women for leadership?[edit]

In a word, masculinity. In one of the greatest essays on the topic that I've ever read, SmellyJelly22 explains:

Men and women both suffer from what I call the “weak” emotions. The weak emotions are fear, anxiety, depression, angst, boredom, distraction, worry, etc… There are many different types of anxiety and they combine in weird ways to cause a plethora of mental problems of women. I can’t make a complete list of the weak emotions, but you get the point. I call these emotions weak because they make a person weak: confused, listless, and unable to pursue or achieve any worthwhile goal. If you’ve ever been under the spell of anxiety or depression, you literally feel a weight on your body that prevents you from doing anything positive. Crazy thoughts race through your head that prevent you from focusing on anything, sleeping, or enjoying your life. Worst of all, the weak emotions are constantly changing, coming and going, so a person feeling them has no way to battle them or a solid footing to rest their thoughts and emotions on. Some scientists have argued that the weak emotions have an evolutionary purpose, but as a matter of practical reality in the modern world the weak emotions usually just cripple people and serve no good. The weak emotions are very difficult to overcome and basically make life shit for anybody experiencing them. This is a wild oversimplification, but mental illness is basically when a person’s weak emotions become too strong and a person’s logical mind cannot control them.

There is one thing that can conquer the weak emotions: masculinity. What is masculinity? It is difficult to describe any human emotion in words, but I will attempt to define masculinity as an emotion (or a series of emotions) that make a person feel powerful, confident, competitive, aggressive, focused, etc… In other words, masculinity is an energy that makes one feel they can overcome any obstacle life throws at them. It is probably the result of various chemicals in your body. The precise definition of masculinity is beyond the scope of this article, but you know it when you see it. The only thing that can conquer an emotion is a stronger emotion, and masculinity is stronger than the weak emotions so it can conquer and silence them. A person who can focus his masculinity with his logical brain can plow through the weak emotions, focus on his goals, feel powerful and dominant, and become successful. Masculinity clears all the emotional debris and useless thoughts floating in a person’s head and focuses them.

Just as both men and women feel the weak emotions, both men and women are capable of masculinity. Women who have no men in their life oftentimes are often forced to become masculine. Women also naturally become more masculine as they age, perhaps because their body produces more testosterone. Both men and women enjoy feeling masculine because it kills the weak emotions.

Now here is where the misogyny starts: because women are less masculine than men, they feel weak emotions on a stronger level than men. Studies have definitively shown that women experience anxiety and depression at twice the level men do. Maybe the chemicals in their brain produce more anxiety and depression, or maybe they just feel it worse because they don’t have masculinity to combat it. Who knows? Feminists argue that women feel anxiety and depression more than men because society is tougher on women, but they’re probably just creating a bullshit explanation to explain data that is not favorable for them.

Because women feel the weak emotions on a stronger level than men, they have historically been stereotyped as “emotional,” “weak,” “irrational,” “hysterical,” “crazy,” “unstable,” “constantly changing their minds,” etc… Women being emotional has historically been the excuse for not giving women rights, because women are just as smart as men. Women in power are often considered “bitches” probably because people suffering from the weak emotions are more likely to feel anxious and threatened, and lash out and become defensive. Another reason women may become “bitches” is that they are trying to fake masculinity – but because they don’t have the actual emotions that accompany masculinity, they come off as unconfident and vindictive.

Please keep in mind: women don’t like being tortured by their weak emotions. They know they are crazy. They know nothing good comes from anxiety. WOMEN HATE THEIR OWN EMOTIONS. That is why women are often disgusted by men who probe their emotions and want to “fix” them. They know there is nothing to fix. Their concerns are stupid, illogical, frivolous and constantly changing. There is no rhyme or reason to them so trying to satiate, address or fix them won’t solve anything. Women know they are being crazy and a man who enters the world of their emotions is just losing himself in a maze with no exit. Women would oftentimes rather men dismiss or ignore their emotions rather than to respond to them as if they were legitimate concerns. They also prefer a man “listen” to their problems rather than offer a solution because they know there is no solution. They don’t want their problems “solved” – they want to be in the presence of masculinity so they can forget their problems.

Because women hate their weak emotions, they are attracted to masculinity. They admire anybody who is calm, collected, unemotional, focused, ambitious, motivated, unshakeable, confident, powerful, and happy. They also like people who are disciplined, live by rules, and have strong boundaries – because those things break weak emotions. Depression makes you want to sleep all day – well you can conquer depression if you are forced to wake up at 6 AM to go the gym! Women are also attracted to men who are not afraid of other men and cannot be broken or intimidated by other men (or nature). If a man is calm, focused, and driven, and can also defeat other men in whatever competition exists, then there is nothing to worry about in life and no cause for weak emotions. He can obtain food, a place to live, comfort, security, happiness, etc… He may not be able to deliver those things today, but he has the emotional make-up for it. Women need that.

So if masculinity enables men to do all these great things, why don't women just become masculine?[edit]

That's pretty much already happening, while at the same time, men are becoming more effeminate. The downside is that it causes a loss of sexual polarity and therefore a lack of sexual attraction between men and women since it is the differences between the sexes that cause them to be attracted to each other. This often results in a dead bedroom. As NeoreactionSafe notes, "The female responds with tingles when led by a more powerful force because her orgasm occurs as a result of penetration. The female polarity glorifies penetration."

Do you believe that when women marry, they retain their individual sovereignty, or do you think they give up their sovereignty when they become part of that family unit?[edit]

It's an interesting question. People generally say, for example, if your wife doesn't put out, you should just divorce her. If you have kids with her, though, then the question arises, can you just dump their mother and get another woman to help you raise them just as well as she could have? Or is she irreplaceable at that point?

If she's a fungible commodity, then I would say that the argument is stronger that under natural law, she could retain her individual sovereignty, because there's less need for compulsion of specific performance from her. The question then arises, as a woman, did she ever have individual sovereignty to begin with? I think the arguments are stronger for recognizing the individual sovereignty of older women, than of younger women. On that point, I'm not too far apart from mainstream libertarians.

But individual sovereignty is a means to an end. If it doesn't make women happier, and help society function more smoothly, but rather accomplishes the opposite, then I don't see the point of recognizing women as having it. It's the same reason why it's not a good idea for animal rights activists to break into a fur farm and set the minks free.

One thing I will say about taking away all of women's power, is that it sure will tend to be effective at preventing them from using power to cause harm. That should be a high priority at this point.

I'm open to revising parts of my platform, if anyone can present arguments to show that I am in error, but the problem is, most libertarians at this point just want to expel me rather than debate. Why might that be?

I guess because they figure pedophiles don't belong in their party. They seem to have de facto adopted a policy similar to Wikipedia:Child protection.

How do you know that keeping women in slavery would be beneficial for them?[edit]

Look at Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings; didn't they have a beautiful and loving relationship?

What are the political implications of the rationalization hamster and dissociation?[edit]

These are both mechanisms women use to avoid personal responsibility. Since freedom and personal responsibility go hand-in-hand, the heavy reliance of women on rationalization and dissociation in order to resolve cognitive dissonances suggests to me that they can't handle freedom.

Why do women have to be enslaved for their own good; why can't you just leave it to evolution to weed out women who make bad decisions?[edit]

For women to become adept at making good decisions on their own would impose quite a lot of extra overhead. See Michael-Seville's statement in Why Men Are Intellectually Superior To Women:

One of the facts about Darwinian evolution, and one so clear that it was noticed long before Darwin investigated its cause, is the fact of specialization. Animals that are fast tend not to be strong; animals that are strong tend not to be fast. An animal that might be both strong and fast will in fact be neither. Nature is very stingy when it dishes out resources and abilities. If there’s no need to fly, an animal will not fly. A woman does not need intellectual capacity to have babies. Reproduction uses a lot of energy and resources but those resources are not intellectual. Men are free of the drain on resources that is reproduction, they, however, have other functions.

Why do women have to be enslaved; why can't economic forces drive women to accept male leadership, if men start refusing to play Captain Save-a-Hoe?[edit]

Young women, being emotional and impulsive, might use a pretty steep present value discounting formula that doesn't take their long-term best interests into account.

How if some fathers make really bad decisions on behalf of their daughters, with regard to what men to marry them off to?[edit]

She can always advise him of her wishes, which he can take into account. But even if he makes a worse decision than she might have made, just the fact that he was the one to make the decision means that he'll have a reason to stand behind the decision and be more supportive of the marriage than he otherwise might be. That alone could increase its chances of success.

If it's in women's nature to follow men's lead, why do women need to be forced to obey?[edit]

Because while it's in women's nature to follow, it's also in women's nature to try to get away with whatever they can. Women tend to be opportunistic.

What are your sentiments with regard to the population implosion, and the fact that Europe's most important leaders are all childless: German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte and the French presidential hopeful Emmanuel Macron?[edit]

It pleases me to see that as fertility rates collapse globally, the captains are going down with the ship.

I get a sense of satisfaction at seeing how that even the elites are not producing enough kids to prevent their family lines from dying out. Let's see, Chelsea Clinton is 37 years old and has only had two kids? Yeah, that's not gonna be enough to save the Clintons from extinction. But there are many other examples.*

These days, I think of all the people I've dealt with in life who have fucked me over in one way or another, and I consider how many children they've had. Usually it's fewer than three, so I know they're part of that trend toward depopulation. They think they've won, because they were able to defeat me in some way or another, and lead lives that seemed prosperous according to some measures.

But what does it all amount to in the end? These "successful people's" sons will probably perish in the barren wasteland that is our modern mate market, while more and more of their daughters' eggs quietly go stale as they push papers at their corporate jobs before going home to feed the cats. They'll sit in front of the flickering television eating a microwave dinner while idly swiping right on Tinder, but the load that gets shot up in them during their one-night stand will never form a viable zygote.

All the people who wouldn't listen to us, and who demonized us, when we warned that feminism would destroy the family unit and cause sterility? Their family trees are going to wither and die. Meanwhile, I sit here and savor the schadenfreude as I look through the country-by-country statistics and reflect on how those nations and races that led the way to feminism will be the first to go. I know that I'm on that same train that's headed over a cliff, but maybe I realized that too late and now the opportunity to jump free is gone. I shrug and say, "Oh well!"

I like the title of Roosh's essay, "The Barbarians Will Solve Your Sterile Existence". It suggests that this existence has become a problem in need of a solution. There's this sense of, "How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Population Implosion". At times, it feels like we're in a Stephen King novel such as The Stand where mass death is coming, leaving only a remnant to fight against the odds for survival.

Well, I didn't go quietly; I stood up and sounded the warning when I had the chance, even at the cost of personal sacrifice. I was not able to get any women past their quota of 2.10, but I made some attempt to before I said "Fuck it." It doesn't matter anyway; when you're swimming against the powerful tide of your society's culture, a few token kicks is only going to slightly delay your being swept over the waterfall.

What will survive the collapse? Maybe a few writings here and there, for the next species that rises to intelligence to examine. Maybe they will investigate in search of clues, the same way we looked into the cause of the dinosaurs' extinction.

  • Even Trump's three wives had only five kids, for an average fertility rate of only 1.67, which is below the 2.10 replacement rate, so in that sense The Donald has not actually done his part to stave off a population collapse.

What do you think are the prospects for reversing the decline in global fertility rates?[edit]

Pretty dim. The idea that women should be educated is being propagated worldwide. We know that this causes a decline in fertility rates below replacement. I don't see how we're going to do what Negative Population Growth advocates, and halt the decline at a certain point. How are we going to say, "Never mind, girls don't need to be educated anymore"?

About the manosphere[edit]

What do you think of Roosh V?[edit]

Roosh V is one of my personal heroes. For many years, he has served not only as organizer of a growing movement, but also as a creative independent thinker, putting forth original ideas in writing, video, seminars, and many other media. He also seems to have a boundless curiosity, as evidenced by his extensive travels, reading, etc. which have undoubtedly helped broaden his perspective so that he is not always seeing the world through the lens of American exceptionalism. This shows what a myth it is, that feminists are the enlightened ones while believers in traditional sex roles are relics of the past, living in ignorance and fear of change. To the contrary, those in our movement have all too often ended up taking the red pill because we got in the trenches and saw and experienced the harsh reality of how dysfunctional relations between the sexes have become. We put fear aside and became determined to push back against what we knew was hurting both men and women.

What feminists and red pillers have in common, is that when you get past the anger and indignation they often express, you can see from time to time a raw undercurrent of pain — from a wound that may be either fresh and still sensitive to the slightest touch, or scarred over long ago and mostly forgotten — that is driving them to want to change the world. The only difference is that they have come to opposite conclusions about who or what is the cause, and what solutions are needed. In Roosh's writings, you see a story of a man who overcame heartbreak to become a stronger man who was capable of enduring persecution and leading a movement. He has chosen to not only live a better life according to the lessons learned from his past, but also document that story for the benefit of others, and for that I am grateful.

Another thing I have noticed that feminists and red pillers have in common, is that often they don't have children. It's as though their ideas, their blogs, their movements, etc. are their children, which they lovingly tend to and nurture. Yet, of course, like any human lacking biological offspring, at times they feel a void in their lives, when they stop to think about it.

I kinda hope that he starts knocking up some 18-year-olds in the near future and raising some kids, since I think that might inspire some interesting articles and videos about fatherhood. I also think it would make him happier.

Who are your favorite manosphere writers?[edit]

There are so many. There are many unsung heroes of Roosh V Forum and /r/TheRedPill who have expressed some deep truths in eloquent ways. Roissy's style is entertaining; he certainly knows how to turn a phrase. But sometimes it seems like he's still stuck in the anger phase. I like Rollo, but his style can be a bit dry. Roosh of course I'm a big fan of. GBFM of course is awesome (both when he's in character and out of character); I even considered linking to his O.C.R. "ONE COC- RULE" BETAS BUTTHEXTING EMPOWERED video on the main page of my campaign website, but I figured most people outside the manosphere probably wouldn't understand it. There are some parts of that video that even I don't understand, but I think occasional incoherence is part of his shtick.

Bonecrker is awesome, and apparently was ahead of his time, although he seems to lean almost MGTOW at times. Illimitable Men is one of my favorite sites. I also like The Family Alpha, although I think the photography on his site, before the revamp, had more personality than the new artwork. Neil Strauss and Mystery I'm fond of, since they were some of my earlier influences, back in manosphere 1.0. There are some parts of The Game that really stuck with me.

What do you think of Roosh V Forum?[edit]

It's an essential part of the manosphere, maybe even more important at this point than /r/TheRedPill, but I think it will need to continue evolving in order to keep up with those who are ready to take this movement to the next level. Some people, like me, are ready to shed their pseudonymity and begin speaking openly. I also think that given that the average woman these days loses her virginity at age 17, there's no way we're going to get around the fact that marriage to teenage brides will need to be legalized, if the manosphere's objectives, such as bringing back the traditional family and ending the sexual disenfranchisement of beta men, are going to be fully realized.

That one issue could be considered the fulcrum around which all other issues revolve, because feminists want nothing more than to be the primary influence over girls in their late teens and early 20s, via the educational system and corporate world. They do not want them settling down with a husband and getting a taste of how good their life can be, being married to a good provider and having kids. A young woman who gives her virginity to a mature and financially stable husband, and has her sexual, emotional, and material needs met within that marriage, will be more likely to stick with him than would otherwise be the case.

You'll notice, the feminists and white knights will fight back harder, and more viciously, with regard to that issue than any other. Even within the manosphere, enough men have internalized the idea that statutory rape is the same as rape rape that it can be hard to keep order once that issue comes up. (But of course, I'm not talking about pumping and dumping a 15-year-old; I'm talking about marriage with the consent of the woman's father. There's a bit of a difference.)

Careful calibration will be needed to liberalize the rules at an appropriate time and in the proper manner, and I'm sure Roosh is up to the challenge. The man is a genius, and hasn't let us down yet, in terms of his leadership of the community and ability to inspire confidence in his followers. His breadth of talent, in handling various challenges and crises that come up, as well as guiding the community's progress through the more peaceful times, continues to amaze me.

Regrettably, I must take my leave of that community, since after successive warnings I seem to be about a hair's breadth from getting my username struck through, but I still find it a useful repository of anecdotes and commentary, and I'm proud of my accumulated reputation points. They may be few in number, but some of the writings I considered most meaningful were what I ended up getting repped on, so I'm glad that people were on the same page as me there.

What are some promising signs, with regard to the manosphere's evolution?[edit]

I like the articles Corey Savage is writing for RoK, such as Why Don’t Americans Declare Independence From One Another? and 8 Common Misconceptions About Anarchism. I'm hoping the manosphere, and the alt-right, go in more of an anarcho-capitalist, or at least libertarian, direction. The relaxation of the 250-post rule on RVF I think will also give new voices some increased latitude for expression on political and racial topics on what might be considered the central hub of the manosphere.

At the moment, the manosphere seems to be mostly ideologically incoherent on the topic of economics, with emotionally-driven arguments ruling the day, and the community having a tendency toward populism and protectionism. But I'm hoping that will change as more libertarians go red pill and join the manosphere. We're already seeing some "economics 101" articles like Why Able Men Should Cheer Every Job Eliminated By Technology.

What do you think about men's rights activists?[edit]

I think their strategy is cowardly, ineffective, and not very creative, inasmuch as it boils down mostly to a bunch of tu quoque fallacies, where they say stuff like, "Men aren't allowed to have sex with girls, yet women are allowed to have sex with boys. That's hypocritical." They will then propose that we crack down harder on women who have sex with boys, when they should be taking the stance that we should give everyone more freedom.

(Of course, my view on hot female teachers who have sex with their male students is that, if the student took her virginity, he should then marry her. If she was already married, then that's adultery, and you know where I stand on that. Then again, why are female teachers being put in charge of teaching young men to begin with? They need male role models who can teach them how to be men.)

What do you think of the black pill?[edit]

When pussy paradises such as the Philippines are gone, then I'll consider going black pill. Till then, I think men shouldn't let cynicism cause them to miss out on opportunities for great sex and loving marriages.

What do you think of neomasculinity?[edit]

It seems to be basically the red pill expressed as a set of prescriptions for how people should live, and combined with a little bit of political theory (e.g. the part about antisocialism). I guess it's compatible with red pill libertarianism, but Roosh seems to have gone in more of an alt-right direction.

What do you see as the future of red pill libertarianism?[edit]

Although there are libertarians in the red pill movement, "red pill libertarianism" isn't really a thing yet, apart from this campaign. We don't have a community unto ourselves, where we can debate the implications of the red pill for libertarian theory, without having to deal with antilibertarian kibitzers saying we should just discard libertarianism in its entirety because it isn't masculine. And unfortunately, I'm probably not going to end up being the one who is able to organize a red pill libertarian movement, because organization isn't really my strength.

Like I was saying earlier, I'm not really an actively participating member of the manosphere at this point (in terms of interacting with others in that community), and it looks like maybe I'll get kicked out of the libertarian movement too, so that will leave me without any way to either spread libertarian ideas to the manosphere, or red pill ideas to the libertarian community. Thus, red pill libertarianism may be about to reach a dead end.

The question then arises, am I going to pursue red pill libertarianism solo? It depends on if I feel like it, and what kind of pressures are applied to get me to stop. It's looking like a "no". I'm feeling pretty fatalistic these days with regard to the prospects of reversing the population decline.

About me, personally[edit]

What made you become a libertarian?[edit]

I took an economics class taught by legendary GMU economics teacher Thomas Carl Rustici that had a profound effect on my worldview. I decided that personal and economic freedom can better solve society's problems than state intervention.

What made you become a Red Piller?[edit]

After my first marriage failed, I had some unpleasant experiences in family court, and began looking for answers as to how and why. This eventually led me to the manosphere. I became an avid reader of Red Pill sites, and felt inspired to speak out for change, to help others families avoid having to suffer what I witnessed and went through.

Are you an edgytarian?[edit]

Sort of, but there are many reasons for that, besides seeking attention. I also like to stand up for the little guy, the outcast, the voiceless, etc. because no one else will, and therefore it seems more urgent to me. It's a matter of triage.

What do you think of nationalism, and white nationalism in particular?[edit]

I am pleased to see that the death of political correctness is allowing people to have more of an open and honest conversation about race.

Many predominantly white countries, such as Norway, Australia, Switzerland, Denmark, Netherlands, Germany, Ireland, the United States, Canada, New Zealand, Singapore, Hong Kong, Liechtenstein, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and Iceland, have had significant accomplishments. How they will be affected by an influx of non-white immigrants remains to be seen. Thus far, the U.S. seems to have done pretty well in assimilating immigrants from a wide variety of countries, although the descendants of those imported as slaves from the African continent continue to have higher rates of crime and other problems than the general population, even after many generations of attempts to integrate them into society. I suspect that harnessing the power of the free market (e.g. through charter schools) to fix dysfunctional school systems in areas like Washington, DC could do much to help solve the problem.

My attitude toward racial differences is, "If the shoe fits, wear it." Don't criticize people as racists for putting forth a theory about racial differences; refute the theory, if you can, or point out that there's not enough evidence to support their conclusion. If there is persuasive evidence, though, then admit it and deal with it. Racial differences don't necessarily mean one race is globally superior or inferior to another; it's often the case that people, nations, races, etc. that are strong in one area allow themselves to become weak in another. For example, western countries rely heavily on their economic power and have allowed their culture to deteriorate.

Although the U.S. may boast of its superpower status, that doesn't mean that it can't, like Rome, decay from within until it is eventually weakened to the point that barbarian forces can breach its defenses and overrun it. While a certain amount of pride in our achievements is justified, it would be a mistake to become overly complacent, to the point of disregarding incipient dangers, or refusing to learn from the examples of others because we are "the best in the world." The best in the world can still fall.

I think Timothy McVeigh got fed up with the militias (which probably had some degree of overlap with white nationalists) because they seemed like do-nothing outfits. Although I agree with Timmy's eventual conclusion, after reading Unintended Consequences, that some other way of fighting the government would've been more appropriate, I have to admire his grit and dynamism in at least attempting to take on leviathan. Sometimes I wonder if the Irish have that in their blood, as manifested by the many successes of the Irish Republican Army. I'm also glad that Timmy cooperated with the authors of American Terrorist, helping make that book a very interesting read.

One thing about white nationalists, though, is that a lot of them probably have spotless records, which maybe we can't say about Black Lives Matter. If you have a college degree, a suburban home, a family, and a white collar job, maybe you have more to lose than a high school dropout with a crack dealing conviction. Also, since white nationalists are no longer under ACLU protection, maybe they see good reason to lie low.

We see the same kind of difference between the anarcho-capitalists and anarcho-syndicalists. The latter have a much more developed theory of revolution because they're already trying to put their plan into action through hacktivism and whatnot. The anarcho-capitalists, on the other hand, don't have a Jeremy Hammond in their ranks. I suspect it's because the anarcho-capitalists are usually people who fit into society better; they're too busy standing at lecterns in suits and bow ties, refuting Arthur Cecil Pigou or drawing supply and demand curves on whiteboards, to march in the streets and man the barricades.

I've read The Turner Diaries and I want to read Hunter sometime, but haven't gotten around to it yet. I'm sure it's entertaining.

Why did you threaten the President in 2008?[edit]

On 11 December 2008, I was in a period of transition in my life (having recently moved to Boulder, Colorado), and considered my future, and my priorities in life. I saw various paths I could take, and reflected on what those goals would mean to me.

With patience and hard work, I could pursue success in entrepreneurship, and try to change the world by becoming wealthy and devoting funds to worthy causes. Or I could go into the corporate world again as an accountant.

But I thought, "Maybe the problem is that so many libertarians have chosen these beaten paths. When we become successful in the business world, our taxes go to enrich the state, and the state becomes more powerful. But if we resist the state, it not only collects no taxes from us, but it has to expend funds to house, clothe, and feed us when we serve time in its jails."

I figured, Libertarians have been fighting since at least 1971 to change the system through elections. Maybe it was time to follow the exhortation of Thoreau in Civil Disobedience, "Let your life be a counter friction to stop the machine. . . . Cast your whole vote, not a strip of paper merely, but your whole influence." Maybe the problem was that we were relying on methods that, as Thoreau put it, "take too much time". He writes also:

The mass of men serve the State thus, not as men mainly, but as machines, with their bodies. They are the standing army, and the militia, jailers, constables, posse comitatus, &c. In most cases there is no free exercise whatever of the judgment or of the moral sense; but they put themselves on a level with wood and earth and stones; and wooden men can perhaps be manufactured that will serve the purpose as well. Such command no more respect than men of straw, or a lump of dirt. They have the same sort of worth only as horses and dogs. Yet such as these even are commonly esteemed good citizens. Others, as most legislators, politicians, lawyers, ministers, and office-holders, serve the State chiefly with their heads; and, as they rarely make any moral distinctions, they are as likely to serve the devil, without intending it, as God. A very few, as heroes, patriots, martyrs, reformers in the great sense, and men, serve the State with their consciences also, and so necessarily resist it for the most part; and they are commonly treated by it as enemies.

Many politicians speak of their years serving their country in the armed forces as a time when they learned fortitude and leadership skills. I too am proud to have spent 46 months serving my country in uniform. It's been said, by those who have served in both, that prison and the military are very much alike, in that you're ordered around by a dehumanizing bureaucracy, you're dependent on whatever (possibly substandard) medical care they see fit to offer, you only occasionally get to see your family, you're subject to a system of summary justice without the due process guarantees a civilian would have, you endure a lot of discomfort, and you never know when violence is going to break out. It was a psychologically and often physically torturous ordeal, which took me a long time to recover from, but in some ways I ultimately emerged stronger. While in prison, I wrote political essays and letters, taught an economics class to my fellow prisoners, and interviewed several of them about their experiences and opinions (and later published the interviews online; see for example the Vlad Draconis PenDragon interview).

The reason I chose to threaten the President, rather than commit some other act of civil disobedience, was that (1) I knew the President would never read the email, and that I would be arrested the next day, so my act would be harmless; and (2) I wanted to influence people to consider the question of when the use of force is justified in defense of liberty against a tyrannical government. This topic had been written about in For a New Liberty with regard to the Bangladesh Liberation War, but I hadn't seen its application in the modern United States explored much in the libertarian community.

The one thing I hadn't anticipated was that both the prosecution and my defense attorney would dig into my psychiatric records and focus the case on mental health issues. My own lawyer finally stopped doing that after the judge told him, "The mental health history cuts both ways. On one hand it can be thought of as a mitigator because it may lessen to some extent Mr. Larson's culpability for his actions because he is suffering from some illnesses which have undoubtedly influenced his behavior. On the other hand, one can think of it as an aggravator because it may make him more likely to commit the same crime in the future or similar crimes in the future."

As Hope Reese noted, with regard to psychiatrists, "To repel criticism in the strongest way possible, from their point of view, you diagnose the critic." For those, such as the state, who are powerful enough to influence the psychiatric profession, a handy way to discredit opposing activists is to have them diagnosed as mentally ill. What I realize now is that civil disobedience is best pursued by at least a small group, rather than a lone individual, because one man acting alone can easily be dismissed as just a disturbed person who finally went off the deep end.

What did you write when you threatened the President?[edit]

It was a sarcasm-laden diatribe. As the magistrate judge noted, "The email is actually fairly lengthy":

Dear Secret Service:

I am writing to inform you that in the near future, I will kill the President of the United States of America.

My primary motivation for doing so is that he is the leader of the largest and most dangerous criminal organization in the world — namely, the United States Government. Among the many unlawful activities it engages in is a nationwide protection racket, in which it extorts money from non-consenting citizens, in exchange for "protection" from aggression. If a citizen refuses to pay, then the government itself commits aggression against him, either by stealing his property; kidnapping and falsely imprisoning him; or killing him if he attempts to use weapons to resist.

The criminal organization justifies these shakedowns partly by saying that the majority of voters have indicated their support for the leaders implementing the extortion; and therefore, bearing the imprimatur of the democratic process, such theft is legitimate. This might be true, if all personal property (such as land and incomes) were held in common, with each member of the electorate being a joint owner having an equal right to decide how it shall be disposed of. But property is not held in common, unless the owner has consented to such an arrangement. If I make an agreement with my employer for a certain wage, and fulfill my obligations, then I have a right to the full amount, not just whatever is left after some criminal gang takes its cut. And if I own land, then I have a right to enjoy it without paying rent to the government in the form of "property taxes," nonpayment of which will result in repossession. Stealing is a criminal act, whether it has the support of one person or a million people.

The government's thefts are not only immoral, but unnecessary. In the absence of taxpayer-funded police, courts, and defense agencies, citizens and businesses would hire private police, arbitrators, and private defense agencies to provide protection and dispute resolution. These firms, being unburdened by the red tape and dysfunctional bureaucracies that accompany government, would be more efficient and effective than government agencies. Abolishing the government's compulsory monopoly will allow a competitive marketplace for these services to emerge, resulting in lower prices and better quality. The same goes for other vital services, such as transportation, education, and health care. (If you want a good picture of what government-run universal health care will be like, by the way, check out the quality of the hospitals run by the United States Department of Veterans Affairs.)

Government regulation must also be ended, since it constitutes an infringement of our freedom. Laws supposedly intended to protect workers, such as the minimum wage, actually hurt the poor by pricing them out of the labor market. The government red tape required to operate a business also creates barriers to entrepreneurialism. Regulation of various professions (including mandatory licensures) reduces the number of available professionals, causing the price of important services (such as doctors, lawyers, accountants, etc.) to rise. Immigration restrictions are violating the rights of employers to invite whomever they want onto their property; and in doing so, are hampering the ability of U.S. firms to compete against low-wage countries such as China in the global economy. Regulation accounts for much of the reason why we are entering a recession, and why millions of Americans are unemployed or underemployed. Everyone should be allowed to negotiate whatever contracts they want for purchase or sale of goods and services, without government interference.

Perhaps most disturbing, the government is also steadily chipping away at the right of citizens to bear arms, the whole point of which is to enable them to fight back against an oppressive government. Once the people are disarmed, they will be able to offer no further meaningful resistance. Thus, this is the now-or-never tipping point at which it becomes essential to take up arms against the government.

People often say that it would be better to try to change the system through the political process, rather than resorting to assassination. Unfortunately, the prospects for peaceful reform are dim. The main reason is that most of the intellectuals, who might otherwise form a nucleus of dissent, have been bought off or indoctrinated. The lure of a lucrative, stable and prestigious job in academia, government or government contracting draws many intellectuals to these fields. In those roles, they are hardly in a position to go around questioning the merits of government's existence. That would be biting the hand that feeds them. Instead, they use their posts in the state bureaucracy (including the public education system) to help indoctrinate new generations of young people into the statist ideology. There are even government positions, such as the Drug Czar, that are specifically tasked with advocating the government's current policies at taxpayer expense (see 21 U.S.C. § 1703(b)(12), which requires the Drug Czar to "take such actions as necessary to oppose any attempt to legalize" drugs). As cannabis reform activist Mason Tvert pointed out, legalizers are essentially paying to oppose themselves.

The statists also have the benefit of political donations from interest groups seeking to profit from feeding at the public trough. The Medicare drug benefit, farm subsidies, etc. are creating whole new classes of citizens who see themselves as financially dependent on the government's continued largesse. It is almost impossible for even a somewhat well-funded libertarian movement to compete effectively against those who have taxpayer funds at their disposal to indoctrinate and/or buy off the electorate.

While it is immoral to kill someone over a small infraction, such as shoplifting a piece of gum, it is morally acceptable to kill someone who is committing armed robbery. As noted, the government is engaging in such robbery as we speak; therefore, the lives of the individuals responsible are forfeit. It makes sense to target those at the top of the organization, so as to decapitate it and thereby cause as much disruption to its activities as possible.

Accordingly, it would seem that the best solution is to use assassinations to overthrow the United States Government by force, so that an anarcho-capitalist system can take its place. I hope that this essay has convinced you of this merits of this idea. If not, I encourage you to read Murray Rothbard's For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto; Man, Economy, and State with Power and Market; and The Ethics of Liberty, which lay out the philosophical, legal, economic and historical arguments for anarcho-capitalism in more detail; and also John Ross's novel, Unintended Consequences, which describes how such an assassination campaign might take place.

The Secret Service has many agents who have physical access to the President and awareness of his schedule and travel routes, and therefore are in a good position to participate in an assassination. If you would like to collaborate on this, please let me know. I am pretty good with precision rifles, and have been practicing hitting prairie dogs at 1,000 yards in varying wind conditions. The President's head is larger than the average rodent, so with prior knowledge of his route, I should be able to find a position that will enable me to take him out with one clean shot. However, sniping is always easier when you have a spotter. Therefore, if you are able to take off a day from work to help me, it will be much appreciated. Don't worry, I can provide a spotter scope and ghillie suit, if you don't have one.

Alternatively, if after reading Rothbard's books, you're still not convinced this is a worthy cause, you may feel the need to take action against me. I acknowledge the possibility of this eventuality coming to pass; and if it does, I invite you to come down to my house where we can stage a reenactment of Ruby Ridge, with you playing the role of U.S. Deputy Marshal William Degan. It will be interesting to see how many of you die before you figure out where I'm shooting from. I have some pretty good night vision gear, so we can even give this a try at 3 AM if your busy schedule makes that the most convenient time. I'll be waiting for you.

Nathan Larson, 4825 Thunderbird Circle, #H, Boulder, CO 80303

More information is also available at and YouTube.

If you're a felon, how are you able to run for office?[edit]

My rights were restored by Governor McAuliffe on 30 January 2017.

What are these allegations that you raped your first wife?[edit]

Like many women (and especially those with borderline personality disorder (BPD), she was into rape fantasies and BDSM. She liked to be tied up and have her hair pulled, etc. At one point, though, she told me that I had crossed her boundaries in a way that she didn't like. We discussed it and reached an understanding, and I had thought at that point the issue was resolved.

As the relationship began to unravel, though, she started saying that I had raped her. Bear in mind, though, that her writings suggest she had a very expansive definition of "rape" that went beyond what the law would consider rape, to include even instances of obtaining sex by false promises of monetary reward. And as she points out in those same writings, she had the ability to stop men from raping her by simply not cooperating.

My theory is that, after she decided to leave, she needed an excuse (for the sake of easing her own conscience) to break her marital promise. So she dissociated, and the fantasy that she had been raped became her reality. Of course, the idea that this could happen is anathema to feminists, who would view it as giving rapists carte blanche to rape mentally unstable women and then claim those women's accusations are delusional. My first wife was well-versed in feminist doctrine, and chalked up her delay in reporting the "rape" to being incapacitated by the acute stage of rape trauma syndrome.

So you either believe me or believe her, but bear in mind too, I wasn't the first or even the second person she had accused of sexual abuse and taken out a restraining order against. Two previous friends or acquaintances of hers, Barclay James Brown and O'Reilly James Flowers, were also among the accused. She also accused both of her parents of abusing her, saying they beat her, pulled her hair, slapped her, threw frying pans at her, threatened her with a knife, scratched her to the point of bleeding, forced her to eat dog biscuits, threatened to kill her pet, and threw her down stairs.

The epidemic of women making wild accusations these days against defendant after defendant, and being believed by the courts despite the outlandishness of their claims, is like something out of an Arthur Miller play. Just like in the Salem witch trials, the courts don't finally turn against the accusers until they finally accuse the wrong person, i.e. someone with social standing who has power to push back. In my first wife's case, that happened when she finally accused her parents, who were evangelical Christians with a great deal of respect and support in their community.

So one has to conclude that either she had a history of associating with men who would physically and/or sexually assault her, or she had a history of making false accusations. Her explanation was that psychopaths were attracted to her. BPD expert Randi Kreger, in his books Stop Walking on Eggshells and Splitting, notes that people suffering from BPD have been known to engage in distortion campaigns, smearing their exes' reputations by accusing them of rape, child abuse, or other offenses that are hard to disprove. Of course, some feminists claim that BPD is just a nonexistent disorder that men made up in order to "explain away as 'madness' the strategies some women use to survive oppression and abuse". They say that it is used to discredit women who have "valid female rage against a world which devalues women".

Some in the manosphere, on the other hand, have argued, "As feminism is an ideology of eternal victimhood, it is a seductive cause for women with borderline personality disorder. Rather than shaping her outlook to conform to that of the group, feminism fits with her warped view of reality out of the gate. She is able to easily take the microcosm of her personal life, with men as the perpetrators, and scale it to the political macrocosm, with the patriarchy as the abstract oppressive force holding her back."

As always, political battles are fought in the field of psychiatry, as opposing sides try to label the other as mentally ill. Although in a way, this issue is a distraction from the campaign, I am also pleased to have had the opportunity to raise awareness of borderline personality disorder, its effects on relationships, and its implications with regard to criminal justice.

My current wife and I have been together for well over a year, and haven't had any problems of this kind. Despite the stereotype of Asian women as being submissive, she's not really under my thumb or anything like that; she has a car, a college degree, a job, etc., and freedom to come and go as she pleases. It's just that this time around, I knew the red flags of mental illness, and avoided women who showed signs of it.

tl;dr No, I didn't rape my first wife.

Didn't you confess to the rape, though?[edit]

I did, but it was a false confession that I later recanted. At the time, my attitude was, "If admitting to rape and apologizing will help convince her to come back to me, then I'll do it." The situation didn't play out as I'd hoped, though.

What happened after your first wife filed a police report accusing you of rape?[edit]

I got a visit from Fauquier County detectives on 5 August 2014, and declined their invitation to go down to the police station to give my side of the story. They then got a search warrant, and that was the last I heard of their investigation. Months later, she went to Colorado and took out a restraining order against me there, which I didn't bother to fight against, because I figured there was no point, given that the relationship was over and we (supposedly) didn't have any kids together. (A week after she had left, she had told my mother that she had miscarried. This turned out to be false.)

tl;dr Avoid getting into relationships with chicks who have borderline personality disorder, unless you want to end up having to continually explain to people for the rest of your life how the relationship crashed and burned so catastrophically, or creating a 50-part video series like this guy's, just to try to process what happened and get over it.

Who was your first wife, anyway?[edit]

Augustine Blakely Larson, formerly known as Emily June Misciagna. At the time of her death, she was calling herself Finley Indigo Grimm. In one of her last letters to me, she wrote, "Looking back, this relationship was pretty much doomed from the start. You're a middle-class, heterosexual white boy who thinks he's experienced persecution, when really, you have more advantages than most Americans. You're fucking sexist, you're fucking racist, you're everything that I despise. You're the type of Libertarian who wants to do everything his way and have his rights, and he wants those rights to include trampling over others."

(My thought, when I read that, was, "Can't love overcome all that?" But of course, the answer is no.)

In case you're wondering how we met, it was at the Facebook page for She had posted a suicide note, and I asked her circa Christmas 2013, "Did you catch the bus?"

Whenever anyone commits suicide, people always want to know the method, so I'll just tell you, she hanged herself in the Budget Host Inn on Sinton Road in Colorado Springs on 3 June 2015.

Why did your first wife commit suicide?[edit]

Almost certainly it was because her child had been taken from her, only days before she killed herself. The child gave her a sense of purpose and hope. Early in her pregnancy, she wrote:

It's been a while since I could say that I’m excited about life, that it feels like an adventure, but the feeling is nice. It won’t last forever, of course, but I also have faith that I won’t backslide too badly.

I feel like my whole life has been a dark night of the soul, and now, suddenly, there's a dawn. In light of everything, you’d think I'd be depressed, suicidal, angry, disrupted, but I'm not. I surprise myself sometimes.

I think part of it is I have to be strong right now. I don't have time to fall into a depression. I don't have time to dwell on the past. I don't have time to moan and bitch about all the shit I've been through. It doesn't matter right now. I have a possible baby on the way, and I need to focus on the future, and my pets, and on my own mental health.

Prior to that, she had worried, "they'd still take the kids, which fills up our foster system and leads me right back to suicide." So she had already thought about killing herself in the event that CPS were to take her children.

What do you think of the alt-right?[edit]

I think there's a danger that it will become a victim of its own success. The more popular you become, the more you have to lose, and the stronger the temptation to start taking the "safe" path of conformity to the current societal values and norms, rather than staying on the cutting edge of reform by continually pushing the envelope further.

Although I was influenced by the alt-right, I was never really a part of it, as I tend to be a misfit in any political movement. I think Milo Yiannopoulos was the same way; he was so outspoken and flamboyant that his eventual parting of ways with Breitbart News, as that organization increasingly becomes parts of the new Establishment, was probably inevitable. I salute Roosh V for taking a reasoned and thoughtful approach in his two videos on the matter, The Milo Yiannopoulos scandal is a coordinated hit job (CPAC 2017) and Analysis to Milo Yiannopoulos' Breitbart resignation & press conference. The reminder he gave in that video, that any of us could be the next to be taken down because we had the audacity to express our opinions candidly, is one that I think will remain timely in the years to come.

What's notable too is that Roosh acknowledged his disagreements with Milo while still defending his right to express those views. There will come times when, regardless of our other political views, we must set aside our differences and present a united front in defense of free speech. That will sometimes include helping those who belong to different or even rival political factions. The ACLU used to fulfill this role, until it was taken over by feminists and social justice warriors. What is left is a void that we are left struggling to fill on an ad hoc basis, now that we lack that organizational framework. We should seriously consider setting up a new organization to carry out the functions that the ACLU used to handle.

Are you an idealist?[edit]

I view my "idealism" as a form of pragmatism. Julian Heicklen said:

You need two characteristics to change the world.
  1. You must be stupid enough to think that you can do it.
  2. You must be persistent and not give up. It takes about 30 years to make changes.

You never convince the present generation. You are influencing the next generation.

When I was in prison, many people told me that I was doing the world no good from in there. But my goals were long-term. Look at Thoreau, whose act of resistance and subsequent jailing went mostly unnoticed by his contemporaries, and then inspired Gandhi long after Thoreau's death. That's the kind of example I look to.

What do you think of religion?[edit]

For several years, I belonged to a non-denominational church, Faith in Christ Community Church (in Orange, Virginia). The pastor was somewhat red pill, in the sense that to some extent he believed in traditional sex roles, and was aware when women were attempting to use deception (including self-deception) to rationalize their behavior. However, even he was not immune to the influence of feminism. He would encourage (and in some cases fund) the young women to attend college or university, with the expectation that they would remain chaste even as their hormones raged and the biologically clock ticked.

I saw the phenomenon Blair Naso wrote about, in which "The boys, believing in an objective morality, delay sex for marriage, and the girls, believing in the unconditional forgiveness promised, fornicate with the non-Christians." When this did, inevitably, happen, the pastor's answer was that they should stop fornicating, rather than that the man who enticed the maiden and lay with her should endow her to be his wife (Exodus 22:16). In my view, that is unbiblical. I don't claim to be a Christian, but even I know better than that. The pastor set them up for failure by giving the wrong instruction.

Christianity, as originally conceived, has a workable set of principles to follow, but it has been re-interpreted so much to appease the feminists that it is now no longer a reasonable framework for living one's life and establishing a successful society. Modern pastors (including my former pastor) will even go so far as to say that polygyny isn't condoned, or even encouraged, by passages like 2 Samuel 12:8, "And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things" despite the fact that the context (viz., David having sex with Uriah's wife) makes that interpretation inevitable.

By the way, that Biblical passage illustrates a timeless truth, which is that men, if told, "You can have sex with any women in the world except these forbidden ones," will often want to choose the forbidden ones. In our modern age, the forbidden women are called "jailbait."

Come to think of it, that seems to be a recurring theme throughout the Bible: "Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." Of course, they are going to want to eat of that fruit, because it has something special to offer that the others don't, just like in our modern times, underage women have something to offer that other women don't. Victor Hugo described it in Les Misérables:

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 are your favorite characters from Les Misérables?[edit]

I like Jean Valjean for making something of his life after he got out of prison, yet also being willing to throw it all the way for the sake of principle, in order to save an innocent man. I also like Enjolras for being so devoted to his cause, and for being such a skilled and ruthless tactical commander. I also like Marius Pontmercy, for marrying a teenager (although I guess that was common back then).

Why do you love Les Misérables so much?[edit]

I feel like that's one of those books, like The Fountainhead, that your life isn't really complete till you've read. Of course, it's hard to read such a lengthy book unless you happen to be sitting in prison, as I was. The Gulag Archipelago is the same way.

Oh, but as to why — I like how Victor Hugo basically wrote a treatise masquerading as a novel. There's a lot of detailed and interesting philosophizing that readers of the abridged versions probably miss out on, tragically. Some of the scenes, like the battlefield and barricades scenes, are also brilliantly written.

What are some insults that have been thrown your way?[edit]

These days, "creepy" and "misogynistic" are common ones. But I keep my morale up by remembering that the desires and thoughts they call creepy and misogynistic, were once considered normal, and probably will be once again, in the not-too-distant future. I know that my side is going to have the final victory; it's just a matter of time. I said the same about the battle to legalize pot back in the late 1990s. The writing was already on the wall, as it is now.

When you're in politics, getting insulted comes with the territory. Feminists get called sluts, misandrists, and blue-haired freaks. If they can handle it and keep going, so can I. Roosh notes:

If you're a dissident, you can't play the victim. You just can't. It doesn't work. The reason is that as a dissident, you're seen as the aggressor that is trying to take the Establishment down. You're seen as powerful. You're seen as more intelligent. You're seen as a person who can, who has risen to the top thanks to your merit, and because of that, you can take down these evil forces, these bloated bureaucracies, and so on. So you cannot also play the victim at the same time.

You either are the aggressor, you either are on the offense, or you become a part of the mainstream, you become a part of their victim complex. So the one complaint I have over the Milo conference is you can't play the victim. You are not allowed to. I actually tried to do that once. Once in my life, I tried to play the victim when they doxxed my family. You think that that is a good time to play the victim, and I sent a tweet out. In that tweet, I said, "Anonymous doxxed my family's address. Whatever I've done in life, they don't deserve to be harassed or harmed."

That's not a bad statement, but it doesn't mesh, it doesn't work, because you're seen as stronger than the Establishment. You can never play the victim card. If you're a dissident, you can't do it. Even if they come to my house and stab me right now and stab my pug right now, I still can't play the victim. You always have to be the happy warrior who just takes the blows as they come but keeps on going, keeps on being strong, you smile. When they stab you, you smile. When they knock you down, you get up, and you joke that the punch wasn't that hard anyway. So when you're a dissident, you cannot play the victim. That's the one thing you have to give up.

What do you think of Donald Trump?[edit]

Any successful politician will tend to reflect whatever has become the mainstream sentiment of his time. Culturally, one of the biggest impacts The Donald had on me was when I noticed that he doesn't apologize for anything, not even to God. He doesn't believe in apologies.

I realized then that when people demand apologies, they're demanding submission; they're demanding that you become a witness against yourself, so that the last person on this earth who might have defended you, has now turned against you. What can anyone say in your defense, when you have condemned yourself? This is one of the reasons why part of my platform is granting immunity to defendants for statements made during allocution.

Because Donald Trump never apologizes, it means he is freer to say what he really believes, because he knows he'll never have to suffer the ignominy of needing to say he's sorry. If necessary, he will just explain away his comments as having been misconstrued, or he'll simply say that he has changed his mind. Often he will publicly denounce or insult a rival, and then after defeating him, publicly praise him and encourage him to stay in politics, by saying that he has a lot to offer. It's an interesting approach, and it seems to work.

The other aspect of his campaign that I liked was his seemingly unfiltered expression of whatever thought came into his head. It was in striking contrast to Hillary's carefully scripted approach.

With someone like Hillary, it's anyone's guess what kinds of thoughts run through her head. With someone like Donald, there's no need to guess, because as soon as it enters his head, it's on Twitter. All politicians are actors, putting on a performance for the public's benefit, but with Trump, it seemed like there was a little less hypocrisy to it.

That has a certain appeal to me, because America's culture is deeply hypocritical, and I would like to see that change. Mark Zuckerberg had in mind that Facebook would be a platform for radical transparency, in which "more transparency should make for a more tolerant society in which people eventually accept that everybody sometimes does bad or embarrassing things." It didn't play out that way; most people these days keep the majority of their Facebook posts private, and/or use Facebook as a propaganda outlet about how great their lives supposedly are. It's one of the reasons why I am opposed to Facebook.

What do you think of the Austrian school of economics?[edit]

My first exposure to Mises' work was The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality, which we read in economics class. I think that book was chosen because of its slenderness, since our required reading in that class consisted of a lot of thicker books as well. In prison, I had a chance to read Human Action, which people used to say I treated as my bible. At one time, I was even going to divide it up into verses and load it into the SacredText MediaWiki extension. I also liked Socialism (a great book if you're going to debate socialists of any stripe), Bureaucracy (helpful for understanding the distinctions between how businesses and governmental bodies work), Liberalism (useful if you're interested in Mises' views on international affairs), etc. although after reading enough of Mises' works, it started getting kind of repetitious as each book tended to restate some of the same ideas. Henry Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson was an accessible and inexpensive primer that proved suitable for distribution and use in the economics class I taught in prison. Friedrich Hayek's The Road to Serfdom I never got into, for some reason, although I skimmed it a few times.

Some concepts, such as the evenly rotating economy, I never quite grasped. But most of the rest, such as Austrian business cycle theory, sounds plausible.

How do you reconcile your assertion that men should be providers for their families, with the fact that at the moment, most of your financial support comes from your parents and your wife?[edit]

Hey, I sometimes have a job. The last time I was employed, I got paid pretty well too ($30/hour). It's just that lately I've gotten caught up more in politics than job-seeking. Ludwig von Mises writes:

Wherever and whenever men meet for discussing any affairs of their municipality, state, or nation, public opinion is in the process of evolving and changing, however trifling the immediate topic concerned may be. Public opinion is influenced by anything that is spoken or done in transactions between buyers and sellers, between employers and employees, between creditors and debtors. Public opinion is shaped in the debates of countless representative bodies, committees and commissions, associations and clubs, by editorials and letters to the editor, by the pleading of lawyers and by the opinions of judges.

In all these discussions the professionals have an advantage over the laymen. The odds are always in favor of those who devote all their effort exclusively to one thing only. Although not necessarily experts and often certainly not more clever than the amateurs, they enjoy the benefit of being specialists. Their eristic technique as well as their training are superior. They come to the encounter with rested mind and body, not tired after a long day's work like the amateurs.

I found this was true when I used to commute to northern Virginia to work in accounting. I would wake up full of ideas and energy, but by the time I got home, I was usually too tired to feel like writing articles, essays, etc.

I don't think that a professor at a university or a staff writer at a think tank is necessarily in a more respectable position than the amateur blogger and politician, though. Where does he get his money? From productive workers and business owners in various industries, who donate to his organization, or are taxed to support the university he works for. How is that any different than living off of help from family?

The only difference is, they pay taxes and I don't. I'm basically a think tank and a university of one, so I eliminate the managerial expenses because I'm self-managing. My fundraising costs are basically nil. I don't have to maintain an expensive office in the city, because my office is part of my home. My commuting costs are therefore also nil. This arrangement is very efficient, all things considered. The only problem is, I'm about to go broke, so I have to go back to work soon enough. Murray Rothbard notes:

The women's libs claim that men are the masters because they are doing most of the world's work. But if we look back at the society of the slave South, who indeed did the work? It is always the slaves who do the work, while the masters live in relative idleness off the fruits of their labor. To the extent that husbands work and support the family, while wives enjoy a kept status, who then are the masters?

(Esther Vilar wrote something similar in The Manipulated Man.) To the extent that I live off of my wife, that actually makes me the master.

Who's your favorite Futurama character?[edit]

Bender, of course. It's frustrating to watch what Fry goes through at times, because it reminds me of my own teenage years. Also, he seems to be the designated doofus, kinda like Chrissy Snow in Three's Company (a show that the Futurama writers are definitely aware of, as demonstrated in the episode, A Flight to Remember). Whenever there's a show where there's a doofus hanging around with more intelligent people, it tends to strain suspension of disbelief because that usually doesn't happen in real life. At least Chrissy Summers had the advantage of also being Ms. Fanservice.

What is your personality type?[edit]

I consider myself to have a melancholic temperament.

Are you a narcissist?[edit]

Sometimes I think, for a man anyway, it takes a certain amount of narcissism just to be able to function in this world. Encyclopedia Dramatica notes, "Depression is a higher state of consciousness in which your pleasant illusions are dispelled, leading you to realise your utter irrelevance and worthlessness. Comprehension of this higher truth inevitably leads you to the only acceptable solution. This state is incorrectly perceived by mainstream society as a medical condition, arguably because a depressed person tends to destabilise the pleasant illusions of others."

Much as disappointed idealists tend to become cynics, disappointed narcissists tend to become suicidal. That is, till they get a second wind and make a comeback. I'm not aware of any narcissists who actually went through with killing themselves; usually they love themselves too much to do that, but that definitely doesn't stop them from thinking about it and planning it when life isn't going their way.

What do you think of transgender people?[edit]

I think they're awesome. I can watch, for example, Calpernia's Bad Questions to Ask a Transsexual and say, "Finally! A female comedian who's funny!"

What do you think of the 2014 American supernatural psychological horror film, It Follows?[edit]

I've seen worse. The audience at the theater I was at busted out laughing when the premise of the film was revealed, much as they laughed at the end of The Blair Witch Project. The producers of course don't care, because they laugh all the way to the bank; the film's budget was $2 million and the box office was $20.6 million, so they didn't do too badly.

As the reviewers noted, the film did start to unravel toward the end, with the part about trying to electrify a swimming pool. C'mon, didn't anyone do the math on how much electricity that would take to be effective? Also, the part where the nerdy kid purposefully sets himself up to become the next one to be targeted by the monster seems kinda unrealistic, unless that kid was just really thirsty for some play, which he probably was. Maybe that's the true social commentary of the film. It's an allegory for how white knights want to play Captain Save A Ho.

What do you think of the age of consent?[edit]

The great thing about patriarchy is that it finally puts an end to all these debates about the age of consent, because it says that women's consent is irrelevant. Nobody cares about woman-girl relationships (since they tend to be pretty discreet, and men think lesbians are hot anyway). Nobody cares about woman-boy relationships (or, if anything, they find the idea titillating and want to congratulate the boy). As for man-boy relationships, what I would suggest is that, if the Catholic Church were going to be intellectually honest, they should just say, "Look, let's bring these relationships out of the shadows" and not make any bones about the fact that they want to bang little boys. They should act like the priest in Louis CK learns about the Catholic Church.

What are some of your favorite films?[edit]

American Beauty was great; I can definitely identify with Lester Burnham in many ways. Maybe his life is what my life will someday be, if I keep progressing in my accounting career. With regard to Lester's young love interest, that film got about as edgy as it could get without provoking an outcry that would have gotten it shut down and/or neutered, in the same way that the film adaptation of Lolita got neutered. The great thing about Nabokov's 1955 novel was the darkly comedic aspect of it.

I liked The Ring, the The Final Destination series, and most of M. Night Shyamalan's works, as well as most of Adrian Lyne's films. I also like pretty much anything by Alfred Hitchcock.

It's a Wonderful Life appeals to the narcissistic spirit of man, I think. We would all like to think that in our absence, the world would have been much different. Sometimes I feel like we already live in that alternate reality that Clarence showed us, in which there's someone missing from the world, some hero who could have made everything better, some friend who could've enriched our lives.

What are some of your favorite novels?[edit]

Around the World in 80 Days was pretty good, maybe the best Jules Verne novel of them all, in terms of suspense and storytelling. Out of Sight was pretty good, and better than the film. Dostoyevsky and Tolstoy are all right, although I think their work (usually the later parts of their novels, like Crime and Punishment or Anna Karenina) was to some extent ruined by the influence that religion had on them. Still, it has its moments. Hermann Hesse is okay, although I usually just skip straight to the sex scenes. Pretty much anything written by Balzac is awesome. Orwell is awesome as well.

What are some manifestos that you've written?[edit]

I've written a Grand Unified Antifeminist Manifesto, much of which is only half-serious, however. I've also written The Loser Manifesto, which argues that those who succeed in this world and become self-sufficient and even able to help others, often don't have a much higher quality of life than those who depend on others for handouts. Sometimes they're even less happy.

Do you hate women?[edit]

Whisper notes, "Women are not some sort of honorless, broken, malformed human being that falls apart and misbehaves unless constantly managed. Women are a perfectly functional sort of creature which is designed (evolved) to need leadership. Did I just say the same thing twice? Almost, but the difference is your attitude. If you stop viewing the need for leadership as a defect, the problem goes away. Women need male leadership like they need oxygen, food, or shelter."

What is there to hate in that, really? As Sir_Distic notes, "Misogynist means someone who hates women. Believing you're above/better than a woman is not the same as hating them."

What are your thoughts on freedom of speech?[edit]

I pretty much agree with the sentiments Roosh expressed in 4 Things You Should Know About Free Speech. Your ability to express yourself freely, including on political topics, is limited by others' freedom to dissociate from you if they don't like what you're saying. Not only that, your freedom of speech is limited by people putting pressure on others to dissociate from you.

For this reason, we don't see a lot of people openly expressing views that they know could cost them their jobs if someone were to, say, threaten a boycott against their company.

Which flavor of Linux do you use?[edit]

I use Kubuntu. I used to use regular Ubuntu, but I guess when they switched from Gnome to Unity, it became so heavy as to be almost unusable on the underpowered processor configurations I typically use. (I rarely spend more than about $200 on a desktop computer.) People say Lubuntu is pretty good too, but my hardware isn't quite that ancient that I would need to resort to that.

Do you think taxation is theft?[edit]

I've been isolated from my fellow anarcho-capitalists for awhile now, so I've ended up backpedaling a bit on my hardline stance on this as my doubts have grown without there being anyone to address them. (As Rothbard wrote, "The contemporary movement is now old enough to have had a host of defectors; analysis of these defections shows that, in almost every case, the libertarian has been isolated, cut off from fellowship and interaction with his colleagues.")

Various people have pointed out to me that even if we get rid of the state, there will still be the need to pay either for rent (in which case the landlord will handle security) or for security services. You never get away from the need to spend money on defense of some kind. Of course, the free market might provide defense a lot more efficiently.

It really depends on what you define as a tax. What exactly makes a landlord different from a government? As a practical matter, I think the only difference is, the landlord is probably organized as a for-profit venture (but then again, an absolute monarchy might be a family business too), and therefore will probably operate more efficiently. One-man, one-vote democracy tends to be exceedingly inefficient because of rational ignorance. The state is usually organized the same way as a credit union, in which the customers are also the shareholders. I don't know about you, but I've never bothered to attend a credit union annual meeting and vote my share. When I became dissatisfied with my credit union, I closed my account and took my business elsewhere. That's how consumer democracy is supposed to work. I write more about this in Running the government as a business.

Even in corporations, it's often recognized that the common shareholders don't necessarily know what they're doing, which is why in the tech industry (where highly specialized knowledge is needed to run the business properly), the founders often have supervoting shares. Of course, they can only get away with doing that if their investors trust them enough to put up with their demanding that power. Not everyone is a Larry, Sergey, or Eric. I've owned stock before, but never voted my shares (typically because there were no insurgents on the ballot attempting a hostile takeover); the only advantage of my having voting rights was so that I could sell those rights to someone else who wanted them when I sold my stock.

I don't like that the state throws people in prison for tax evasion; I'm not sure how that can be justified, unless you believe both in the idea of implicit consent to the social contract and in the idea that people can sell themselves into slavery (which is controversial among libertarians). If anything, tax resisters should just be exiled from the state's territory. In particular, I don't like this trend toward imposing expatriation taxes and even blocking some Americans who are behind on their taxes from emigrating, by denying or revoking their passports. (I'm therefore glad that the Ex-PATRIOT Act didn't pass.) That reminds me of the Filipino practice of not letting patients leave the hospital till their bill is paid. I guess there's a similar practice in the U.S. that if you dine and dash from a restaurant, you'll be arrested, but at least in that case, you're usually dealing with small dollar amounts so it isn't as big a deal. At least in the movies, it was possible to work in the kitchen for a few hours to pay your bill.

What do you think is going to happen as more and more social relations are carried out over the Internet, and people meet and hang out in person less and less?[edit]

That's a very interesting question that I wonder about sometimes (and about which there's been some soul searching lately in the manosphere). I think our society may end up like the one in The Naked Sun. Some of the people I rely on for companionship, intellectual stimulation, and emotional support, I've either never met, or I only see a few times a year. But before the Internet existed, people wrote a lot of letters. I've tried to get back to that by abandoning Facebook and using mostly email for communication. People on Facebook are distracted by a million shiny objects clamoring for their attention, but with email, at least you get some focused thought because people don't feel under as much compulsion to reply immediately, or they get tempted into devoting their full attention to you for a good 20-30 minutes as they read and respond.

What do you think of Infogalactic?[edit]

I haven't really bought into that project yet. The promotion of Idris to sysop, though, is definitely a good sign. For the moment, I'm taking a wait-and-see approach. I would say, the main problem is that they're trying to compete head-to-head with Wikipedia in some cases (e.g. in the case of noncontroversial articles about, say, math, programming, or the hard sciences) in which it would be better to just mirror rather than fork them. For the time being, I'm still linking to Wikipedia rather than Infogalactic because I think forking is not a step to take lightly.

What do you think of the Trump Wall?[edit]

It'll be expensive, but the cost will probably be nothing compared to Bush's wars.

Do you even lift, bro?[edit]

I probably should lift more. For awhile, I was doing the Convict Conditioning New Blood program, but I was having trouble with my technique, so I quit because I didn't want to injure myself. I wish I had a friend to work out with. Someone was trying to help me via Skype, but that has its limitations. My dad was helping me learn weightlifting, but his regimen is very laid back (he does about 10 reps of everything and then quits, rather than doing multiple sets), so I felt I wasn't making much progress.

How come in the photo that was taken for The Fauquier Times, you're looking away?[edit]

I almost never take good photos. So, I can either have a neutral expression (like what you see in Lingamfelter's photos, which works for him, I guess, because he's got that gruff Army colonel thing going for him), or I can have a natural smile where someone managed to take a photo right when I was amused by something and forgetting the presence of the camera. That usually means I won't be staring directly at the camera.

The backstory behind how that photo ended up being used was that I was feeling stressed out and asked for my wife's help in finding a photo from her Facebook albums, and then we ended up getting in a fight over nothing, so she stopped talking to me. Since I didn't happen to remember right off the bat what her Facebook password was, I just decided to cut through the Gordian knot by sending the same photo that was used during my 2008 campaign.

The painting in the background of the photo, by the way, is part of the "Crib Series" of paintings, whose theme is to show what the world looks like from a baby's perspective. By the way, the best comment anyone left was, "Nothing says hyper-masculinity like paper doily shelf liners."

Do you usually have a beard?[edit]

During college, I shaved every day; then in the work world, I usually shaved 2-3 times a week. These days, I usually shave once a week. Growing facial hair seems to be in vogue these days in the manosphere; gotta flaunt those testosterone-driven secondary sex characteristics, I guess.

Are you going to get LASIK?[edit]

I want to, but I'm definitely going to have to finance it. Problem is, when I have a job with which to pay for stuff like going to the dentist, or the eye doctor, or whatever, I usually don't feel like taking half a day off to go there.

Do you like corn mazes?[edit]

I do, but it can be hard to find a good one. Cows-n-corn was disappointing because it didn't actually challenge you to get from one side of the maze to the other; your goal was to find your way out by the same way you came.

You want to know what's a really nice maze? That hedge maze they have over at Luray Caverns.

What do you think of The Lolita Method?[edit]

I think it's a brilliant and wickedly funny work of satire with a lot of truth in it. I would say, however, that the theory part of the book is stronger than the case studies part, where it just descends into silliness and obvious fantasy.

What's your favorite kind of sandwich?[edit]

Ladies, I thought you'd never ask. I find that just about anything tastes better with bacon on it. It's definitely worth the five minutes of preparation time, plus the grease can be used to fry an egg.

What's do you think of the boylove movement?[edit]

I think even their detractors have to admit, that's one of the most resilient movements mankind has ever seen. They have survived wave after wave of attacks and kept coming back, sustaining a vibrant community that puts the girllove movement to shame. Their leaders get arrested, their boards get shut down, and every effort is made to throw all their cultural artifacts (their books, their magazines, their films, etc.) down the memory hole. Nevertheless, they persist. Neither dissension from within nor aggression from without can ever so much as shake its foundations. One is reminded of the passage from Nineteen Eighty-Four: "It was too strong, it could not be stormed. A thousand rocket bombs would not batter it down."

What makes their accomplishment more impressive is that unlike other groups that have been persecuted over and over, such as the Jews, they haven't had many times when they were in control of the state and therefore able to have some space to rest and recover. For them, there has been no Israel to which they could exercise a right of return when the going got tough. They have always had to remain on the defense against the relentless attempts on their lives, liberty, and property.

How many movements do you know of that could withstand all that they have withstood? They've been kicked out of the gay rights movement. They've had to deal with the feminists' calling them exploiters; the psychiatrists' calling them sick; the religious right's calling them sodomites; and the tabloid press's calling them predators. Yet nothing stops them. Even within the prison walls, they receive and distribute their underground publications. The only other movement I know of that shows anywhere close to that much solidarity is the anarcho-syndicalist movement.

What are your favorite webcomics?[edit]

I liked Red Panels, and I think it's a shame that it's gone. I liked Red Pill Comics. I liked John Campbell's Pictures for Sad Children, and I'm sorry to see it gone too. I used to like Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal but now I'm starting to feel it's not edgy enough, plus it's hard not to find the unrealistically ubiquitous miscegenation (much like what we see in modern advertising) distracting. I like Wondermark.

What's your favorite juice recipe?[edit]

One whole fennel bulb, four red delicious apples, and half a beet. The juice will be purple and taste like licorice.

Have you written any other resolutions, besides Recognizing feminism as leading to individual and societal harms?[edit]

Yes, there was also Sense of the Senate Resolution on Removing Criminal Penalties for Possession of Marijuana.

Who is one of your favorite Delegates?[edit]

I'd have to say Joseph Morrissey, not for any political reasons, but because of his personal life, and the fact that he didn't give up. Glad to see he and Myrna got married.

Who is your favorite character in Game of Thrones?[edit]

Craster, of course.

What are some of your favorite anime series?[edit]

I like Death Note and Future Diary. I also like Erotic Torture Chamber and I really wish they had made a sequel, or at least translated the novel upon which a sequel could have been based, into English. I also watched Elven Bride II and Alien from the Darkness many, many times, although these days I haven't been so interested in anime anymore.

What are your favorite video games?[edit]

It's been a long time since I devoted much time to any video games other than Conflict (which I wish I had owned when I was a kid, much like I wish I had known about nomic as a kid). However, I had a fairly extensive NES collection and used to play the heck out of Metroid (although mostly I just beat the game rather than exploring, because it was scary to get lost in the maze, plus you were operating under a time limit if you wanted to see the best ending), Ninja Gaiden, Contra, Platoon (1987 video game), etc. I beat The Legend of Zelda, Golgo 13: Top Secret Episode, and Castlevania II: Simon's Quest with the help of maps and walkthroughs, and then felt satisfied that I didn't need to play anymore.

I also used to play Sim City and Sim City 2000 quite a bit, although it always seemed disappointing that it was hard to make a passenger rail system be cost-effective (just like in real life!) I think I also beat Desktop Tower Defense on the medium level of difficulty. I also played Grand Theft Auto IV, although I actually prefer to watch other people play that than play it myself, unless I'm just going to be ramming stuff on purpose and running over people for the heck of it.

As I've gotten older, I've lost a lot of my interest in video games.

What are some of your favorite videos of teenage nudists?[edit]

First Day of School

I like Candid-HD's "First Day of School" series. I'll even give them some free advertising, since thus far I've just downloaded their content via The Pirate Bay without giving them a dime. I'm really happy that this kind of content is still legal to possess and view in the U.S. (as long as you don't violate copyrights, but those usually aren't strictly enforced).

What do you think of the Dark Enlightenment?[edit]

I hadn't heard of it before reading this comment, but it seems cool.

What do you think of Predator's Manifesto?[edit]

It's pretty over-the-top. But what do you expect me to say; I am, after all, a moderate when it comes to political and cultural issues concerning relations between the sexes.

What were some lessons learned from the custody case involving your daughter, In the interest of Piper Morgan Sparrow Faye?[edit]

First of all, even when you have a lawyer, always go with your gut when it comes to making decisions, because you know your case better than anyone, and you will be the one who has to live with the consequences of whatever choice you make. Principal-agent problems exist in the field of litigation, too, just like in business.

During jury selection, I think we made a critical error in not striking Peter Constance from the venire. If I recall correctly, Mr. Green was next in line, so the county attorney or the guardian ad litem would have had to use their last strike on him, because he was probably the venireman there who had the greatest capacity for independent thought and therefore presented the greatest risk of hanging the jury.

I thought my own testimony was presented pretty well, although my ideas on child liberation have evolved since then. In day two, I think we could've pressed licensed clinical social worker Gayle Christensen a bit harder on some epistemological matters concerning the harms from father-daughter incest and adult-child sex. My lawyer did say, "And your main experience, based on your testimony, is in treatment of victims and offenders, correct? . . . . And in the treatment of those victims , those victims that come to you are victims that are traumatized, correct?" I think she was trying to follow my instruction to point out that his opinions were derived from his experience dealing with clinical populations, rather than from the general population as a whole, but she did it in a way that was so subtle that I'm not sure it got the point across.

From the perspective of not wanting to waste resources on a lost cause, perhaps I made the right decision to relinquish, since the law seems to give judges so much leeway to terminate parental rights if they have an expert opinion saying that doing so would be warranted. Still, I think that there were some important First Amendment issues implicated in the case, and that it probably would have been worthwhile to raise those on appeal.

The way I look at it now is, Piper is probably not going to amount to anything, because she's a Facebook baby, and nothing good ever comes from Facebook. Both of her family lines (paternal and maternal) are pretty messed up, and she was doomed from the start because in a lot of ways, I'm a weak man, but the only alternative to being raised by me was to either be raised by August's hippie or SJW friends, or be raised by the same people who raised August. I can't imagine that's going to end well.

After the first time I met Piper, I wrote, "She seemed to be a pretty cute, laid back, inquisitive, independent-minded, and ambitious child, a high-quality kid in all respects". However, August seemed to have a lot of good characteristics, too. For that matter, so do I. It doesn't necessarily translate into success.

Probably what'll end up happening, is that at age 16, she'll be taking black cock behind a dumpster in the rear parking lot of a strip club that she got a job at by getting a fake ID after she ran away from home.

Sometimes I do kinda wonder if, had I been given Piper to raise, it would've forced me to "man up" in certain respects, but perhaps we'll never know, because it's unclear that I'll ever end up raising a kid.

What do you think of your first wife's decision to go transgender?[edit]

I think all women do that to some degree, as they become more masculine with age. It's one of the reasons why it's best to go for 18-year-olds; that way you get to see the full spectrum of femininity turning to masculinity over the course of the marriage. You see their full development as a person over their adult life.

I think, though, that people who go trans never fully escape the influence of having been the sex they were born as. It's like how people who have a certain religion or philosophy in their youth, or come from a certain town or region or country, never fully escape the influence of their roots.

How do you feel about the loss of your daughter?[edit]

Of course, it is a tragic missed opportunity. My (second) wife fell in love with her just from watching the video of Piper and me, and wanted very much to help raise her with me. And of course, I wanted to raise Piper too. Everyone loves Piper; she has a very easygoing and pleasant personality, and is fun to be with.

The relationship with my first wife, and everything that came from that relationship (including Piper), were characterized by my suffering more and more loss the more I tried to hang on. But of course, it's necessary to hang on for awhile in order to do justice to values that (and people who) are important to me, if not to society.

I wouldn't have felt so bad, if it had just been her mother who took her away from me, as mothers so often do, through the court system. But they took her away to give to people who didn't even have any blood connection to her. The only upside is that at least they are people who knew, and raised, my first wife, so in that sense, they're family.

I'm reminded of the RoK essay, "Two Movies That Showcase The Invisible Caring Father," about Mrs. Doubtfire and Falling Down. In a way, this campaign is all about Piper, because the loss of Piper helped lead me down the path to the red pill, and made me realize how badly the culture had decayed, to the point that I felt compelled to take action. I could point out flaws in the legal system, too, but the loss of Piper also happened because of cultural decay, because the decisions of jurors, in a case like this where there the jury is given such broad discretion to make subjective judgments, tend to reflect mainstream culture.

What do you think about the Libertarian Party Radical Caucus?[edit]

It looks like a do-nothing organization. Also, the party discipline provisions in Section 3(E) of its bylaws are gay.

What do you think when people say that you should be excluded from employment opportunities or from politics because of your felony record?[edit]

My first thought is that it's a good justification for suicide if you never get a chance to move on from your past. At this point, it seems like they're beating a dead horse; I already served 46 months in prison. What more do people want? But you see, restrictions on what you can do aren't always intended as retribution; sometimes they're to "protect the public." I.e., they're intended to serve the purpose of incapacitation. That can go on for the rest of your life.

But maybe I can still find a way to live a happy and productive life.

Even those who haven't been convicted of felonies still face restrictions on what they're allowed to do. For example, even if you have a clean criminal record, you still can't smoke pot in Virginia. Your right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is already infringed even though you haven't victimized anyone. So you just have to stick to beer, I guess.

What kinds of prison reform do you advocate?[edit]

I would advocate experimenting with cushy, Norwegian-style prisons, which seem to have been pretty successful. Sometimes I also think that there should be an independent Office of the Prisoner Advocate, which would be analogous to the Office of the Taxpayer Advocate. But I doubt there's much of an organized constituency to ask for this kind of reform.

How do you respond to white nationalists who oppose your being married to a Filipina?[edit]

Hey, I would've been happy to put it in a white woman, except that I don't want to get frivorced again.

What do you think of Hammer Kaiser's statement, "I do agree in marrying off daughters through arranged marriage as soon as possible and I think the time of puberty is way too late because it unnecessarily deprives a husband of being able to enjoy his wife during her prepubescent years. This is why I like to marry my own daughters off by the time they are around 6 to 8 max."[edit]

Well, it's certainly provocative. I can't really think of an objection to it.

Are you aware that in a society where there is polygyny, you might not be able to find a woman?[edit]

I'm fine with that. May the best man win. Although, if I had the potential to get another wife in addition to the one I already have, it might give me an incentive to achieve more than I have thus far. Remember what Al Bundy said, "I realize that everything I've been doing up to now, the bathing, the brushing, the changing of the socks, the being nice to people, the trying to succeed, it's all for nothing. All those things are designed to attract. Why should I be attractive? I'm married with children."

Do you have mommy issues?[edit]

No, I've always had a good relationship with my mom. I did not go antifeminist till after my first wife left me, and I saw how callous people are toward abandoned husbands. I now know that the affliction I was suffering from was oneitis, but it was only the manosphere (and to some extent, the community of BPD relationship survivors) that would've told me that and given me resources to help deal with it. It also helped that I got in touch with my first wife's ex and got a dose of the truth about her.

After I went through the family court system, I became even more antifeminist, although having observed the attitude of the typical American women that it's okay to dump your husband for any reason had already given me reason enough to promise myself that I would never marry another American woman.

How have your views on politics and relations between the sexes changed since you started this campaign?[edit]

See the articles at rpl:Category:Feminism and antifeminism don't matter for some examples of how my thinking has evolved. I think it's true that sometimes (as under communism), the state tends to get in the way, and great men's potential is lost. Albert Speer I guess would be an example of that. But whatever; it seems like people will always have a desire to restrict freedom and destroy a lot of great men who defy the will of the masses. A few innovators will manage to lead the masses, by coming up with inventions and whatnot; but we're already probably losing about 99 percent of innovators' potential, even in the U.S., just because the innovators so often have trouble finding co-founders.

How have you changed as a person since the start of this campaign?[edit]

This is related to my answer to the previous question. I used to feel great compassion for those who went to prison for, say, child porn offenses. Now my view is, that's really only a small percentage of the population. One might argue, "But we all pay taxes to fund their incarceration." That's not exactly true; if I'm a jobless loser, I don't necessarily pay federal taxes.

Anyway, when I look at my platform, I question how much any of my stances actually matters. (See also my essay, Isn't it weird that antifeminists find feminists so threatening, and feminists find antifeminists so threatening?) At this point, I feel like all that matters in this world is paying the bills and getting some tight, young pussy. What else really matters? Everything else is just entertainment. It's even said that politics is just the entertainment branch of the military-industrial complex.

I've put politics ahead of other stuff because of a belief in morality, but morality just boils down to practicality anyway. I got frustrated with apathetic people, but now I myself have gotten burnt out, and in many ways stopped caring.

When you think of how the average man will watch, cheer at, and talk about, football games, it's evident that people really do have too much time on their hands, to the point that they have to occupy it with meaningless bullshit. One might argue, perhaps even indignantly, "There's so much they could be doing to benefit the world, besides that!" Yeah, politics gets so tedious sometimes, and it takes forever. Football, it's true, lasts a whole season, but not everyone tunes into it for so long; some just pay attention when it's Superbowl time, or whatever. (I guess some people are the same way with politics, too, just paying attention about a week before the general election.)

Do you think Virginia should secede from the United States?[edit]

Sure, why not. It's hard to see how it could be much of a tax haven, though, with all these leftists and cuckservatives in charge.

If you had it to do over, would you become a perennial candidate and otherwise live a normal life instead of threatening the President?[edit]

I have mixed feelings about that. There are some perennial candidates, like Gail Parker, who have built movements. But remember, I'm a pioneer, not a leader.

I also suspect that perennial candidates' platforms tend to become stale after awhile. After awhile, it's just the same old, same old. You gotta get some new blood in there once in awhile.

At any rate, maybe I would've gotten kicked out of the Libertarian Party just for my beliefs about pedophilia and adult-child sex, even if the issue of the threat against the President hadn't arisen.

I also think that, when you're in a political campaign, you're mainly trying to reach the people through the media (since most people won't go to your website), but working through the media can be annoying, kinda like trying to get your content out there through Facebook. You can only spread your content by packaging it in a certain way and presenting a message that's designed to spread virally and that can spread virally because people want to hear and share it with their circle of friends.

I suspect there are diminishing returns as you run for office over and over again. You've said all that you have to say, and have nothing new to offer, unless you're finding some way to keep it fresh, but it's also easy to get burnt out unless you have some driving passion that keeps pushing you forward. What pushes me forward is when there's something I have to say, that I haven't yet said.

Carl Loser seems like a good example to follow. He ran once, said what needed to be said, and was done. Then it's time to get into non-politics like Adam Kokesh.

For whom will you be voting for President in 2020?[edit]

Probably Adam Kokesh. I would vote Libertarian, except that now that I've been expelled from the LPVA, I essentially have no representation in the Libertarian National Convention that nominates the Libertarian candidate, so I'd rather just write someone in.

What do you think about the jury system?[edit]

For most litigants, the right to a jury trial amounts to the right to watch every dissident and independent thinker get struck from the venire during jury selection, so that you can be tried by a group of sheep. This makes it pretty rigged, and largely defeats the point, unless you just happen to like being judged by the common man. Most people that I know pretty much hate society, though, and just want to be left alone for the most part, although I guess some are able to fake being personable in order to get what they want. They're kinda sociopathic and Machiavellian that way.

It's also an incredibly expensive system, in terms of the man-hours that it consumes. If you figure that 30 potential jurors have to show up for jury selection, and that it takes 2 hours to pick the jury, that's 60 hours right there. Then every day of court is another 8 jury-hours times 12 jurors/jury equals 96 juror-hours. The expenses add up pretty quickly.

What are the odds that the Great Fast of 2017, also known as the Fast unto death in protest against laws that infringe free speech by criminalizing possession and distribution of child pornography, will actually lead to your death?[edit]

I'm going to face both internal and external pressures to end the fast. Thus far, all I've encountered are external pressures.

But you have to keep in mind, I basically fulfill the criteria to be a horrorcow at this point, which is different than just being a regular person of interest. It limits my options somewhat, so that I don't have much choice but to kill myself, unless I'm going to be satisfied with celibacy and/or childlessness. From a Darwinian/natural selection/evolutionarily stable strategy/etc. standpoint, at this point it really doesn't matter whether I kill myself or not, because I have nothing to lose.

Are you severely depressed right now?[edit]

I don't feel that way. This is more of a rational suicide, of the kind described in Cato's Letter No. 56.

What do you think of Christian Weston Chandler?[edit]

That guy is pretty cool. I like the wiki about him, anyway. Even though they say that it isn't a fair representation of reality, he has put so many YouTube videos and whatnot out there that it would be hard to not get a sense of what the true reality is. Now he just needs a blog (or does he have one already?) I sent him an email offering my help if he wants to run for Delegate this year, but I haven't heard back. Supposedly, he doesn't read emails from people he doesn't already know, so maybe that's why.

Do you have a blog?[edit]

I have a bliki, which contains some entries from my defunct blog, Obuibo Mbstpo.

What do you think of Alison Rapp?[edit]

She reminds me of Augustine. I was going to say, "I'd probably fuckmarry her, I were allowed to have a harem, and if she weren't a post-prime chick with tons of red flags (including obvious slut tells)" but then I saw the Dramatica article and I'm really not sure that I ever could've been attracted to her. I find septum piercing pretty weird.

What is your response to those who say, "Don't kill yourself; there's always hope"?[edit]

Yes, there's always hope, but the future also always has in store more bullshit that you have to deal with. You have to consider what's likely, not just what's possible.

What politicians have you met?[edit]

I shook hands with Bill Clinton in 1993, and had brief conversations with Jim Gilmore in 2008 and Scott Lingamfelter in 2013 and 2015. In 2013, I was handing out libertarian literature at the polls, and Lingamfelter apparently mistook me for a Republican poll worker and gave a box with a dozen donuts. In 2015, Lingamfelter showed up at my door when he was running against Sara Townsend. He asked if there were any political issues I wanted to discuss, and I told him that he should introduce legislation to make it easier for third party candidates to get on the ballot.

Why have you sometimes thought about running for the Virginia Senate in 2019?[edit]

I've always wanted to run for some sort of senate or another. (I served in the GMU student senate, but that was a unicameral body.) Senator is a more badass office because senators serve longer terms and the senate is typically a smaller body. Senators are a more elite group.

Also, I wanted to run against Vogel, because I oppose the bill that she and Jennifer McClellan introduced raising the marriage age. But, given the consequences I've had to deal with for running in this race (notably, that it's pretty much destroyed my career), it's hard to see myself running a second time, unless I find some career in which my past doesn't matter.

Also, I'm not sure I have anything more to say, really, that would motivate me to want to go out there and collect 250 signatures. I've already put my red pill message out there, and I'm a pioneer, not a leader. Also, I'm not particularly fond of running as an independent; I prefer to run as a Libertarian.

But it may depend a little on how many votes I get this time around. If I were to get, say, 5 percent (which would be unusual for a competitive race like this), it might make me reassess the situation somewhat. I have to look at what impact I make and consider whether I could make a further impact by running in 2019.

Are there any other offices you've thought of running for?[edit]

I don't think that I would particularly want to run for an executive office like President or Governor, since I don't really believe in popular elections for those offices. I've thought about running for local school board or supervisor, but I think I would find it too boring. That's more like something I would have run for back when I was a minarchist.

I might consider lieutenant governor, though, since that office rarely has a Libertarian candidate, and the Lieutenant Governor is unlikely to become Governor. Also, I wanted to run for U.S. Senate at some point.

What do you think of Luka Magnotta?[edit]

That is one creepy guy. And coming from me, that says something. I watched the first minute or two of that "Python Christmas" video and thought, "Man, I wish that kitten had kept a closer eye on that python." My other thought was, "How did Luka himself feel safe with a python loose like that?" Those things are pretty scary.

Still, cats are carnivores too, so they would have no problem torturing and devouring a rodent. I would say that all animals other than herbivores must be a little psychopathic in what they're willing to do to other creatures.

What are your theories about the differences paths of activism?[edit]

There are people like me, who get kicked out of every movement because we're the most vocally extreme dissidents, and maybe have done some extreme stuff. We subsist on handouts from family, usually, and are single because women don't want to have anything to do with that kind of life.

There are people like Heath Hitler who build a small movement of extremists, and maybe even have wives and kids, but live on handouts from the state because no one wants to hire someone who's that obviously associated with a very stigmatized extremist movement.

There are people like Pete Eyre, Roosh V, Joe Oddo, etc. who live on a shoestring budget, travel from place to place, and aren't able to keep a girlfriend. They live off of sponsorships or freelance work.

There are the very quiet activists who basically don't talk about their extremist views outside their family, and they work a regular blue collar or white collar job for some major corporation. Maybe they go on the Internet and share some of their ideas anonymously, but they might even consider that too dangerous, and therefore watch what they say.

Then there are people like Zac Gochenour, who become teachers, or work for think tanks, and can live a pretty comfortable, normal, and maybe even prestigious bourgeois life. Looking at the options I've listed, that often seems to me to be the best one. You write papers that can be cited on Wikipedia and therefore influence the wider public. You teach students who will go on to become leaders in the business world and in the state, and change the system from within. And you get paid to do it.

Everyone who chooses the options that lead to a less pleasant life ends up saying, "Yeah, maybe I should've picked a different option." I guess if you're going to go the professor route, though, you need to really be on top of your game, since there are a limited number of slots, but the same could be said of any profession. I'm not even sure how many people were even angling for those slots; a lot of people just don't feel like spending their life in academia, for whatever reason, but from the outside it looks like a pretty sweet gig.

It does come to my mind a lot. I hate the thought of suffering for nothing, and banging my head against a wall.

Academia has a lot of potential advantages, because you're surrounded by students who maybe have nothing better to do than to get involved in whatever project you come up with to try to make the world a better place, and you can always spin it as an opportunity for experiential learning and resume-building. What could be a better environment for cultivating and implementing new ideas?

The reason I didn't get an economics PhD and pursue teaching was that I figured I might not be good at teaching. After I did teach an economics class (in prison) I realized it's actually not all that big a deal, if you prepare yourself adequately.

So I have to wonder, why pick any other path, unless you can make more money at it? Being a professor is always going to have a certain coolness factor anyway that's lacking in a lot of other jobs.

Since I can't go back, I have to figure out, "Now what?" Well, I'm gonna work on Infogalactic, doing basically the same stuff I wanted to do with Inclupedia, and see if I can achieve my most important dream in life, and then the rest doesn't matter.

Probably I'll end up going back into accounting eventually, but who knows whether I can actually succeed at it. I may have to fake it till I make it, since I have a lot of catching up to do.

What do you think are the keys to surviving at Wikipedia?[edit]

Most importantly, don't out yourself. Don't reveal your real name, or your affiliations, or political leanings, or anything like that, on Wikipedia. If you're going to criticism Wikipedia or Wikipedians on a Wikipedia criticism site, don't link that profile to your Wikipedia account. If you look at the list of ArbCom-banned users, a lot of them were people who outed themselves or were known to be active on Wikipedia criticism sites. Any information you give about yourself makes it harder for you to edit in those areas because people can say that you're biased or have a conflict of interest.

At some point, you're probably going to need to familiarize yourself with every single rule at Wikipedia:List of policies and guidelines, so that you can gain a better understanding of how Wikipedians think. This is a good opportunity to write up a detailed critique of Wikipedia's rules, which of course you won't post to Wikipedia but can put elsewhere on the Internet. It might be helpful in devising rules for some other wiki.

But the actual text of the rules doesn't really matter that much, on a day-to-day basis. When an argument breaks out, people usually just cite whatever rules or essays sound like they could be related to the topic at hand, without regard to whether the rule is actually applicable to the situation in the way that they're trying to use it. In the end, it comes down to which faction is the strongest, not which faction is right.

If an admin gives you a direct order, obey it without arguing. There's no way that you can prove he's in the wrong, because Wikipedians are allowed to ignore all rules, and those with admin tools are in a stronger position from which to enforce their interpretation of what's in the best interests of the encyclopedia. Most admins these days have a group of supporters who stand ready to back them up in any dispute. Therefore, if you argue with an admin, you'll probably attract attention from those supporters, who will then start stalking you and interfering with your work, because they view you as a potential enemy of their faction. Also, the more you reveal about your possibly divergent thinking, the more they may view you as some kind of troublemaking wiki-dissident who's purposefully disruptive, or too incompetent to understand the rules, or not there to build an encyclopedia.

What can happen sometimes is that they start citing a bunch of rules in a way that misinterprets or misapplies them, and you can be totally in the right, but still lose because the consensus of people who bothered to show up for the discussion (i.e. the admin and his friends) is against you. Once a discussion has gone against you, you've been officially adjudicated to have been in the wrong, not just by one admin, but by a group of allegedly uninvolved editors, and it looks worse on your record. The more times that happens, the more it looks like you're "exhausting the patience of the community."

Don't apologize either, though, if you decide you were in the wrong, since that could be used against you later. If you never admit fault, then people have to work harder to prove that you have a pattern of incompetence or disruption. Let your pattern of edits speak for itself about whether you learn from your mistakes.

More generally, it's best to just follow the example of Tobiblin and Neddyseagoon and never engage in discussion. You want to be the Clarence Thomas of Wikipedia. If a problem can't be solved through bold editing, you should let it go. This will get you in the habit of letting your edits speak for themselves, as you add sources to back up your points, rather than engaging in pointless debate. If you have complaints, take them to a wiki that cares; don't raise them on Wikipedia, where people will just say, "The door's that way, if you don't like it."

If you never engage in discussion, then if you do get taken to the drama boards, people will think, "Oh, this guy is pretty harmless, because he never talks." The talkers are regarded as the more dangerous users, because they may build alliances or challenge others' alliances. You want to seem like a guy who keeps his head down and quietly makes useful contributions to the project, keeping his focus always on articles rather than other users. Let the users who give you trouble look like the drama-mongers who want to pick a fight over nothing, while you walk away and move on to productive work elsewhere. Let the person who complains against you be the one to get hit by a boomerang.

Set low expectations of how Wikipedians will treat you and your content, so that you're not disappointed. If you're creating new articles, save a copy for yourself in case it gets speedied. And beef up that first revision.

What Wikipedia barnstars have you received?[edit]

I have received the Oddball Barnstar, the Socratic Barnstar, and the Donald Trump Barnstar. I think at some point I got the Barnstar of Good Humor too, but I forget what that was for.

What do you think of Nikki Haley?[edit]

I don't have any strong opinions about her. She seems to keep a pretty low profile. In the primary, she supported Marco Rubio, who seemed like an okay guy. I guess what will probably happen is that she'll support Trump in 2020 in exchange for a promotion to Secretary of State.

When are you going to get your wife pregnant?[edit]

Hey, I've been trying. Don't rush me. It makes me feel like Jim McAllister in Election. Man, what a great movie.

What do you think of Trump's decision to back out of the Paris Agreement?[edit]

It's probably a good idea. My guess is that if we increase the amount of carbon dioxide in the air, plant activity will pick up to compensate. Why wouldn't it? If you start a fire in a 100% oxygen environment, doesn't the fire burn more fiercely to compensate?

What do you think of campaign finance reform?[edit]

It's hopeless. There's no way we can come up with a political system that isn't corrupt, because every donor and every voter has a conflict of interest. Even if you're not bribing politicians by putting money in their pockets to spend on hotel rooms in which to snort coke off hookers, you're still helping them get a position that's going to pay them in money, power, prestige, etc. The best we can do is have transparency.

What's your favorite Family Guy episode?[edit]

I like the Quagmire's Mom episode. Her relationship with her son reminds me of my grandmother's relationship with her sons.

Do you live in your mom's basement?[edit]

No, my room is above ground.

Are you going to resume work on your memoirs?[edit]

I probably should. I find they're useful when I want to sum up what my life has been about. Lately, though, I'm not sure there's anyone left who cares. What is there left for me to do, that would be all that controversial or notable? Just some software development that might happen at some undefined point in the future.

What do you think about Libertarian candidate recruitment?[edit]

I suspect one reason why there aren’t more Libertarian candidates is that when you run for office, you put a big target on your back. Suddenly, you open yourself up for criticism that you wouldn’t have encountered if you had just worked quietly behind the scenes.

When you run for office, all the opinions you’ve put forth about the best strategy and tactics get put to the test. If you run and get 1% of the vote, how are you going to criticize the next Libertarian who gets 1% of the vote, and say that if he had followed your advice about how to run an effective campaign, he would’ve done better?

I think a commentator or critic on Libertarian campaigns who hasn’t run for office himself lacks street cred. Till you’ve done it yourself, you haven’t seen what it’s like from that perspective. You’re only seeing it from the outside; you haven’t seen it from the inside.

Pretty much everyone who has a job and a life can use the excuse that they’re too busy to run, but I consider it somewhat of a cop-out because the majority of the campaign is the sitzkrieg between ballot access petitioning and Labor Day. You probably have time to knock on every door and attend campaign events, if you and your family are willing to make a few sacrifices for just one year.

People say sometimes, “If you don’t vote, you can’t complain.” Why wouldn’t the same principle apply to running for office? Until you’ve run for office, you haven’t exercised all of your civic rights.

What do you think of Dyann Roof?[edit]

I think that guy's pretty cool. I like his manifesto.

What do you think of the 2018 FIFA World Cup?[edit]

I think it's pretty cool that they'll be holding it in Russia. I'm going to be watching the qualification matches pretty closely from this point onward, I think (which is one of the perks of being unemployed; it's not like the 2006 FIFA World Cup, when I was anxiously watching the scores from the office).

How has your perspective changed in 2017?[edit]

Well, a lot has happened. I look at the Libertarian Party differently, because the Old Guard that did the heavy lifting is gone now, and the new crew is more SJW-oriented. It seems like they're mostly fading into irrelevance, though, because they don't have their act together. Cliff Hyra doesn't even seem to have a campaign website. The Party has organized too much via Facebook rather than through channels that worked better, such as online forums.

The main change in my perspective has been that I realize I'm not doing much worse than others. When I look around, I see that others aren't replacing themselves either. I'm starting to suspect that we're getting poorer, even as communities seem to be yuppifying, because so much money is being spent on meaningless bullshit.

What do you think of the U.N. Parliamentary Assembly?[edit]

I think we may as well just call it the U.N. Parliament. We have a Pan-African Parliament and a European Parliament, so why not a U.N. Parliament.

If you lived in Puerto Rico, how would you vote in the Puerto Rican status referendum, 2017?[edit]

suppose if I lived there, I would vote for "Current Status". Yeah, it sucks not having voting representation in Congress, but they do get to vote in the Presidential primaries, and they get to avoid paying federal taxes. That's the main benefit of being a territory.

The downside is that unless they become a state, Congress could at some point do to them what they did to the Philippines, which is spin them off as a separate country, just to get rid of them, since their culture doesn't really mesh with that of the rest of the U.S. (although they'd probably fit right in, if they went to California).

But I think at this point, the U.S. likes to keep small islands under its control as military outposts. Puerto Rico only has 3 million people, while the Philippines has 100 million; administering a relatively small colony like that is less of a big deal.

If they become a state, for the most part, the only people who benefit are those who want to become welfare recipients, because then they become eligible for those. Pretty much everyone else seems to lose. Virginia should probably apply to have a similar status as Puerto Rico; it sounds like a good deal.

What do you think of the Bloodhound Gang song "Take The Long Way Home"?[edit]

There's some profundity there.

About Virginia politics[edit]

When do you think cannabis will be legalized in Virginia?[edit]

In 2015, I conducted a detailed analysis of this, and concluded that there are still several more dominoes left to fall before cannabis is likely to be legalized in Virginia. Thus far, events have been unfolding in accordance with my predictions.

What do you think of Danica Roem's campaign against Bob Marshall for the 13th House of Delegates district seat?[edit]

I like that she's not basing her whole campaign on transgender issues. I get so tired of identity politics. Anyway, this should be a very interesting race, and I and a good part of the rest of the Commonwealth will be watching closely, while consuming much popcorn, between now and the evening of the 7th of November.

Who do you think's going to become the next Governor?[edit]

Probably Ralph Northam. Why wouldn't it be? It makes more sense to nominate a current Lieutenant Governor than a former Congressman (Tom Perriello), and the Republicans don't have any decent candidates, nor have they won a statewide election in a long time. If there's no Libertarian or Indy Green on the ballot, I might even vote for Northam, because he supports pot decriminalization.

Who do you think's going to be the next Lieutenant Governor?[edit]

That's a tougher question. I'm not too familiar with the Democratic candidates. I really hope that Vogel doesn't get the nomination because she's not just the type of femiservative to merely vote for bad bills that others introduce; she actually takes the initiative to introduce them herself, which suggests to me that she's a dangerous person to have climbing to higher rungs on the ladder of power. I also think she is lying about the email scandal she's involved in, but I'm not sure how important the underlying scandal actually is. As usual, it's all about the cover-up. She probably should have come clean early on and defended her behavior as just how she rolls in this bare-knuckles battle of politics. I'm not sure how much the voters will care about all that, though.

I don't know too much about her opponents, but they're probably a bunch of cuckservatives, if they've made it as far as they have in the Republican establishment without coming to my attention. If they were high-profile traditionalist crusaders like Bob Marshall, I would've heard of them already.

Who do you think is going to be elected Attorney-General?[edit]

I don't know; I guess Mark Herring, being the incumbent, has the advantage, although he barely squeaked by in the Virginia Attorney General election, 2013. I've voted Republican for Attorney-General before (e.g. when I voted for Bob McDonnell in 2005, based on his endorsement by the NRA), but I've also voted Democratic (e.g. in 2001, when I voted for Donald McEachin based on his criminal justice stances). At this point, unless there's an independent or third-party candidate in the race, I'll probably be voting Democratic, because I don't really want to advance another Ken Cuccinelli's career. The Democrats tend to be better on pot reform and other social issues, which are highly relevant to Attorney-General races. On the other hand, sometimes it's good to have a Republican in there to fight back against federal infringements of states' rights, but with Trump in the Oval Office, maybe that won't be of as much use at the moment, since they'd be in the same party. It might almost be better to have someone from the opposite party in there, to push back against certain of Trump's policies that cross the federalist line.

What do you think of the felony reenfranchisement legislation that died in the Virginia General Assembly in 2017?[edit]

I think most of it has been flawed, in that it didn't restore rights to violent offenders (as would have been arbitrarily defined by the General Assembly to include child pornography offenders). I think they should just do what Vermont and Maine do, and refrain from disenfranchising felons to begin with. Given that the Republicans in the General Assembly are going to block any such legislation, though, maybe it's best to just keeping electing Democratic governors who will restore almost everyone's rights.

For whom are you voting in the 2017 Republican primary?[edit]

I'll vote for Corey Stewart for using the word "cuckservative," although I find Frank Wagner's desire to invest more money in transportation intriguing. I think it can only work to my benefit to have more alt-right-leaning people running this year. Of course I won't vote for Gillespie, who says I shouldn't have been allowed to run.

The bunch running for Lt. Governor looks so terrible that I'm going to have to write in my own name. I was going to say, "Well, no, I might vote for Bryce Reeves, just for attacking Jill Vogel" but I see that he has just as bad a rating from NORML as Vogel. So I'll just write myself in. I ended up voting for Reeves because to my knowledge he hasn't endorsed Gillespie.

For Attorney-General, I'll definitely have to vote for Chuck Smith for supporting cannabis decriminalization.

What do you think about Susan Platt's proposal to remove Confederate statues and change the names of highways that are currently named after Confederate generals?[edit]

I think having highways named, e.g., Lee Highway, has a certain coolness factor. I thought the rule was that whoever is in a weaker position gets to hold onto their identity, history, culture, etc.? So, for example, blacks are in a weaker position than whites, so they get to have black colleges, black history, etc.

Confederates are in a weaker position than Unionists, so don't they get to have monuments and whatnot in the southern states, and to fly their flag? Aren't they a protected minority by this point?

What do you think of Cliff Hyra?[edit]

My initial thought was that I would almost be tempted to vote for the Democrat in this election, just for the sake of pot legalization. But I see Hyra has three, going on four, kids; I gotta have respect for this effort to increase the American fertility rate.

He needs to get his shit together, though; I don't even see any signs that he has a campaign website yet. I'm also not sure I like what he said about restoring voting rights to nonviolent felons; what about the violent felons?

What do you think about the fact that your cousin, Mike Casey, is running for Delegate also this year?[edit]

I want to know what he's going to do about the fertility rate.


Why do you call this a FAQ? It seems less like a list of frequently asked questions, than a list of random questions you thought up to ask yourself. Even this question, you're probably just making up to ask yourself.[edit]

You'd like to think that, wouldn't you?