It’s not looking good for Comstock

The Dems point out that she usually votes with Trump, but on the other hand, she was a NeverTrumper (and for a bad reason — the Access Hollywood tapes), which is why she attracted basically two primary challengers. (Both Shak Hill and I served essentially in that capacity, attacking her from the left.) It’s never a good sign when you get primaried; Lingamfelter got primaried too last year, and he also lost.

She hasn’t taken a stance in support for Brett Kavanaugh. Instead, she got on what may turn out to be the wrong side of history, by supporting the #MeToo movement.

On the other hand, Wexton doesn’t seem to have any major drawbacks. Even though her commercials have rhetoric saying she’s in favor of a bunch of anti-man stuff (e.g. collecting child support, getting tough on sex offenders, and keeping guns away from “domestic abusers”), she hasn’t really been a feminist SJW. Her legislation isn’t really all that extreme (it seems like mostly housekeeping rather than anything substantive), and most of the cuckservatives probably would’ve voted for the same bills. Heck, the Republicans even say that she voted against helping victims of domestic abuse (HB 1, HB 484), although that too seems trumped up.

And she’s apparently been willing to plea bargain with sex offenders, even pedophiles, supposedly, also that’s pretty run-of-the-mill. All prosecutors in northern Virginia tend to plea bargain. When it comes right down to it, there’s not much difference between her and Comstock.

What’s a bad sign for Comstock, though, is that she turned down the League of Women Voters debate. I don’t necessarily like having a league of women voters (men wouldn’t be able to set up such an organization for themselves), but to not do the debate seems like cowardice and maybe even acquiescence to defeat.

So are there any death squads I can hand myself over to for execution?

Supposedly, there were going to be some right wing death squads, but I heard that’s just a meme. What about Antifa; don’t they have anyone available who can kill me upon request? I mean, both sides of the political spectrum consider me pretty degenerate.

I’m thinking of just going down to the Manassas resident agency and lying down near the entrance, to get arrested for trespassing. That would just be in protest over the kind of life I’m forced to live these days, as a convicted felon. There are other kinds of protests I could do, but I have no money, so it’s not like I can buy some weed and get arrested for smoking it in Barbara Comstock’s office. No, I have to commit the kind of protest that indigent guys commit.

I suppose I could tell the guards that I’m protesting the FBI’s prosecution of victimless crimes. Hmm, what kinds of crimes might those be? Child pornography, insider trading, … what else? Possession of a firearm by a felon. Illegal immigration. I’m sure there are quite a few such statutes, which I might find objectionable if I were to peruse the criminal code. That should be enough for now, though.

The alt-right favors enforcing immigration laws, but I think it’s kinda retarded to throw illegal immigrants in prison. Usually they do that if the person got deported for an aggravated felony and then came back. Why don’t they instead just execute him, if he’s that dangerous? We have too much incarceration, and not enough use of firing squads.

Besides, I need to burnish my reputation as a libertarian by standing up for the illegals those unjustly excluded from our great nation. I think during campaign 2018, people got the idea I was some kind of right-winger, when that’s really not the case. I remain as libertarian as I ever was.

But no, maybe I should just focus on, say, the federal gun laws that prohibit people from possessing machine guns, sawed-off shotguns, etc. That’s always a good libertarian issue.

I suppose the FBI also gets involved in certain kinds of drug enforcement. I don’t know too much about that. Well anyway, I obviously don’t have a very comprehensive manifesto or anything like that, which I would use to justify my actions tomorrow (if that’s when this ends up going down), but I guess what I will do is protest federal infringements of individual liberty in general.

UPDATE: I scoped out the map and it’s about an 11-mile walk from where I live to 9325 Discovery Blvd. It’s actually not a very easy walk, because there are no sidewalks and there’s probably lots of tick-infested brush that I would need to walk through on my way there. This would be easier in the winter. Of course, another possibility would be to catch Uber, but I’m too poor.

I was thinking, another possibility would be to catch a bus to DC and jump over the outer fence in front of the White House. But, I don’t even have enough money for bus fare right now.

So yeah, it would seem I fucked up by dropping out of the race

What happened at the end was, my mom gave me a choice. Either (1) I could drop out of the race or (2) she would pay for me to stay someplace other than our house for the last three months of the campaign, so that she could tell her boss, co-workers, staff, etc. that I don’t live with her anymore. That way, they wouldn’t be telling her she had a conflict of interest in working for an organization that’s anti-domestic violence, while supporting a son who’s pro-domestic violence.

(She would still have been financially supporting me, but it apparently wouldn’t have counted because I wouldn’t have been living with her. The newspapers would probably only have noted my living situation, not who was funding it, if I didn’t live with my parents.)

So, what I should have done was taken her up on the second option she offered, and stayed at this campground, which charges only $11/night. Three months of that would’ve only set my mom back a grand. I’m not sure why I didn’t think of that, because I used to know a homeless dude who was staying at a campground because he couldn’t afford a hotel.

Anyway, as Hitler wrote, “those nations which lay down their arms without being absolutely forced to do so subsequently prefer to submit to the greatest humiliations and exactions rather than try to change their fate by resorting to arms again.” That’s the problem with this type of surrender, in which one drops out of a race when it wasn’t necessary. It makes it hard to motivate oneself to try again later.

I had already promised myself during this petitioning season that I wasn’t going to run for Congress again after 2018 anyway. I was going to say what I needed to say, and then leave politics. But normally I would want to see my campaign through to its end, rather than aborting it. Otherwise, it was somewhat of a waste of time, because the voters didn’t get their chance to weigh in, and let their voices be heard.

My opponent, Barbara Comstock, even presumed to speak on behalf of all of her constituents (not just her supporters, but also those who might have voted for me) by saying, “It is good news for all voters in #VA10 that Nathan Larson, a convicted felon who served time in prison for threatening to kill POTUS and is an admitted pedophile, an admitted rapist, white supremacist, and misogynist, is now off the ballot in #VA10”.

So yeah, it would seem I fucked up. But I also have to ask, “Why didn’t anyone else suggest the campground idea?” People were saying I should try to raise money to support my campaign. But that wasn’t really necessary, since my mom was offering to provide the necessary support, on the condition that I use the money to move out temporarily.

When it comes right down to it, my decision to drop out was probably worse than Tom Grauer’s decision to delete his blog and not save any backup of it. (The thing about what he did, though, was that he deliberately left no way by which he could reverse what he was doing, even though he had ample opportunity to do an export and thereby leave that bridge standing rather than burn it.)

Because of this bad decision, I lose a certain amount of self-respect. It further supports my opinion of myself as being a man who makes poor decisions that waste his potential. The only silver lining is that I can think, “If I made this dumb decision, then maybe I’ll also make a foolish decision to kill myself, and act on it before I have a chance to realize I don’t need to do that.”

It’s just another item that I can add to the reasons list. Maybe someday, I’ll be sitting there with the pentobarbital in front of me, and be like, “I’ve made a bunch of bad decisions up to this point, so why not one more?” But no, I probably have too much self-love for that.

Anyway, there is one other way I can try to redeem myself.

One thing about Babs that’s unusual for an American woman is that she’s actually thin

dkb7yypxcaaz4h11You don’t really see a lot of thin women these days. Most American women are pretty sedentary, and/or so unhappy and anxious that they have to use food as a cope, and/or they get on meds at some point that cause them to gain massive amounts of weight. Babs probably does enough walking around (or running away, as the case sometimes is) that she burns a lot of calories.

Jennifer Wexton declines my endorsement

I was reading this Fauquier Times article:

In an Aug. 13 blog post that has since been made private, Larson endorsed Comstock’s Democratic challenger, state Sen. Jennifer Wexton, in the November election. Wexton spokesman Ray Reiling, however, said the senator would not accept Larson’s endorsement and called his views “abhorrent.”

“We do not under any circumstances accept Mr. Larson’s endorsement. His views are abhorrent and we strongly condemn them,” Reiling said in an emailed statement.

(“Abhorrent” is a word that’s always used in a sanctimonious context, I’ve noticed.)

Anyway, she can’t really decline an endorsement. That’s like declining to accept an employee’s resignation. These are unilateral acts, not requiring the permission of the other party.

What I’ve suggested is that libertarian- and conservative-leaning voters pump and dump Jennifer Wexton. Use her in the 2018 general election to get rid of Barbara Comstock, and then discard her in the 2020 general election by voting in Shak Hill or some other Republican — hopefully somebody who’s better than Comstock (making sure of that is why it’s important to vote in the primaries). Or if you’re libertarian, and there’s a libertarian candidate on the ballot in 2020, then of course vote for him.

Anyway, Wexton can’t stop people from voting for her based on my advice. As long as she’s on the ballot (and even if she withdrew, since the voters are entitled to write her in; what is she gonna do, make a Sherman pledge?), people can vote for her as a way of purging out Comstock from the Republican Party, with the intent of voting in another Republican in 2020. Of course, she can try to hang on in 2020, rather than getting voted out.

wexton_pelosi_1000px-681x375But at least at first, Wexton will be in a weaker position than Comstock is, when it comes to pushing feminist policies, because she’ll be a freshman Congresswoman, rather than someone who’s already been there for two terms. Voting against incumbents is also a great way to register your displeasure with the direction in which the government is going. And if you’re a Trump fan, it’s potentially helpful to Donald Trump to have a Democratic majority for the next couple years, since he can use Pelosi as a foil in the 2020 presidential election.

Not that any of this really matters all that much, since we’re not going to be able to stop the acceleration into the feminist singularity. When conservatives get elected people think, “Hooray, we’re gonna make the country great again.” Margaret Thatcher turned back years of socialist “progress” in the U.K., for example. It didn’t change the fact that the U.K. is nothing compared to what it once was. Their civilization is still on the decline; their fertility rate is 1.81, for example. Brexit isn’t going to change the fact that relations between the sexes are as dysfunctional there as anywhere.

Same deal with Germany. Hitler was a heroic guy, who made some progress in bringing Germany’s fertility rate back up. But he wasn’t able to stay in power, and now Germany’s fertility rate is 1.50.

Slight correction to this part of the article, by the way:

0pasftfLarson said he suspects the members of the “Anonymous” hacking group were responsible for the burglary because they left behind a note and a U-lock bicycle lock, which he said is signature symbol of the group.

Maybe I misremember, but I thought what I said on the phone to the reporter was, the note said Anonymous took credit for the burglary, but I suspect Antifa because they’ve used bike locks on people before.

antifa-prof-arrested-7-1024x565Most famously, there was an incident in Berkeley where Antifa member Eric Clanton hit a 20-year-old college student, Sean Stiles, over the head with a U-lock.

Antifa had put out a call to take action against me. It could be that whoever did it belonged to both organizations. Those are both leftist groups.

So, it appears I’m officially withdrawing from the race tomorrow

UPDATE (2018.08.13): It’s a done deal.

I’ll be going down to the registrar and submitting this form. (For an explanation of why I’m dropping out of the race, see my earlier post.)

I’m endorsing Jennifer Wexton for Congress. The reasons are as follows:

First, I think in times like this, when we’re displeased with the direction in which the government is going — and especially when, as now, society is on an unsustainable path — we should vote out the incumbents. The only exception might be when the incumbent in question is an unusually good politician, like Ron Paul, who introduces proposals that, if enacted, could radically benefit our society. Barbara Comstock doesn’t meet that threshold, so she should be voted out.

Either Comstock is a moderate, or she hasn’t demonstrated much political courage. This is dereliction of duty. It’s supposedly the role of a member of the Republican Party — the whiter and more conservative party — to defend our culture against decay, not hasten the decline. But we’ve seen her continually take the side of career women, e.g. by pushing legislation against sexual harassment, rather than advocate that women should be in the home where they will be protected by male family members. For this betrayal of correct moral values, she should be electorally punished, even if it means elevating Wexton to high office. In the words of Corneliu Zelea Codreanu, “If I had but one bullet and were faced by both an enemy and a traitor, I would let the traitor have it.”

To advance the cause of patriarchism, we should at every opportunity seek to purge out the female politicians and cuckservative politicians from the Republican Party. The best chance would have been in the primary, when Shak Hill was trying to get nominated; but since that didn’t happen, it will be necessary to get rid of Barbara in the general election instead. Then, in 2020, it will be possible to nominate someone better.

Remember, there’s no such thing as a patriarchist Congresswoman; any woman who runs for office, rather than staying at home to take care of kids, is obviously a feminist. The Independent Women’s Forum, to which Barbara Comstock belongs, is a moderate feminist organization. She spends her time on programs like the 10th Congressional District Young Women Leadership Program, which teaches high school girls to devote their years of peak beauty and fertility to “ambitious educational and career goals” rather than getting married, having kids, and putting family first.

This type of feminist enculturation leads women down a path to worry and unhappiness. Today, one out of five adult women is taking a psychiatric drug, a rate that is double that of men. Women take anti-anxiety pills to help them deal with the stress of shouldering responsibilities that in times past, men used to handle for them; and they turn to antidepressants when they find that having a career is not as satisfying as devoting themselves to taking care of family.

(See also my Incels.me post, “There are no ‘traditional, conservative’ foids; even female Republican politicians will force you into cuckoldry, if you give them power“)

Second, Wexton and her fellow Democrats might be slightly better than Comstock and her fellow Republicans on issues like cannabis legalization that are of interest to libertarians. Many incels and volcels could end up devoting much of the remainder of their lives to LDAR’ing. Given that feminism has destroyed much of the incentive for male success and accomplishment by rendering relations between the sexes so dysfunctional, there will be many men with decades of basement-dwelling, vidya-playing, 2D-anime-masturbating, and shitposting ahead of them; and they could benefit from some relatively harmless copes such as cannabis. After all, it’s not like they have a wife and kids (or the potential to, through betabuxxing, get a wife and kids) they’d be neglecting by spending their time getting high.

But of course, those members of society who are fortunate enough to live a somewhat decent life can also benefit from cannabis legalization by using it to enhance their experiences. A lot of them will probably use it as a substitute for harder drugs like opiates anyway, so it’s actually going to improve public health. There’s really not a lot of downside to pot legalization, but for whatever reason, Comstock never advocated it. Probably she figures, since not a lot of women get busted for pot, legalization is not really a women’s issue, so therefore she’s not going to care about it. That’s how those female politicians roll; but Wexton, being under the dominion of Democratic party bosses, might feel compelled to support pot legalization, as part of their strategy to seem pro-black and pro-Latino while also siphoning some of the pot consumer vote away from the Greens and Libertarians.

Third, it seems doubtful that patriarchist libertarians can bring about the more drastic changes we want to see in society by directly pushing back against the leftists. What happened to my candidacy was proof of that. As Roosh V pointed out, as soon as you move beyond engaging in “controlled speech,” i.e. what the establishment doesn’t mind your saying, and into the realm of truly dissident “free speech,” that’s when you will get shut down.

So what we will need to do instead, perhaps, is elect candidates like Jennifer Wexton whose radical (compared to Comstock’s) brand of leftist, feminist, “progressive” egalitarianism will move society toward the brink all the more swiftly. Once civilization collapses, then we can build a new and better civilization along capitalist and patriarchist lines. Wexton is the accelerationist choice.

Right now, the Alt-Right is embracing accelerationism more and more, as they see how hellbent the left is on censorship. The premise behind accelerationism is that our state of affairs has to get worse before it can get better. Andrew Anglin told his supporters, for example, to join the leftists in pressuring the major Silicon Valley tech companies to kick Alex Jones off of every platform. The goal is to force Alex Jones onto platforms that are less-regulated by the establishment, where he can speak more freely. The people who manage to follow him into these darker recesses of the Internet will be a more radical group.

Similarly, when I drop out of the race, I won’t be speaking at forums run by groups like the League of Women Voters or the NAACP, where there’s a left-leaning audience and a left-of-center moderator like Stephen Farnsworth. I don’t mind speaking to hostile audiences, but in the age of Antifa, the era of trying to persuade one’s opponents is obviously over. It’s all a fight for supremacy now.

I’ll be going underground. The darkweb seems to be where the future is at for those who want to share unorthodox views. Anglin had to spend his time there, and apparently, so will I.

What’s isolated from the mainstream can develop without interference from it. Meanwhile, the mainstream’s ability to argue against our ideas atrophies, as they sit in their own echo chamber. Polarization accelerates, as the country divides into rival factions that will meet again when guerrilla warfare breaks out.

So I see that Barbara Comstock has put out a new video about MS-13

Here’s her latest vid:

The meat of her legislation is this part:

Any alien is deportable who—

“(i) is or has been a member of a criminal gang (as defined in section 101(a)(53)); or

“(ii) has participated in the activities of a criminal gang (as so defined), knowing or having reason to know that such activities will promote, further, aid, or support the illegal activity of the criminal gang.”

The Hill reports:

The legislation considered on Thursday would authorize deportations of immigrants suspected of gang activity, which is less stringent than current law that requires them to be convicted of crimes.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) lamented that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) “must sit on the sidelines and wait” for known gang members to be arrested and convicted.

Proponents of the legislation said that the change is necessary because it’s difficult to convict gang suspects, given witnesses’ fear of retribution.

“It will ensure that when ICE positively identifies a known alien gang member, they may act immediately,” said Rep. Barbara Comstock (R-Va.), the lead sponsor of the bill who is also one of the most vulnerable House Republicans heading into 2018. “We don’t have to wait until these brutal killers wield their machetes or leave another body on a children’s playground.”

The part about machetes calls to mind imagery out of Haiti. I think she’s trying to say, “If we let these non-whites take over, they’re gonna slaughter us.”

I’m not really sure what to make of this. Is this a last-ditch effort to more openly get on the Trump train, or does she realize she’s gonna lose so she’s finally going to let people know how she really feels about Latinos (many of whom are probably going to play a part in her electoral defeat)? Maybe she’s trying to court some of the more conservative Latino citizens who want to slam the door shut to further immigration.

Anyway, as a libertarian, I’m in favor of letting peaceful people cross borders freely. If they commit a felony, let them have their due process (i.e. all the rights assured by the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments, and so on), and then shoot them. Don’t bother with all this deportation stuff; they have nowhere to go that’s a decent place to live, so they’ll probably end up either coming back illegally, or living a shitty life in their home country. Both of these are pretty pointless options.

This legislation also, by the way, does nothing about the gang members who were born in the U.S., or who have naturalized. If we want to discriminate based on race, then we might as well adopt Hitler’s proposed system of dividing the population into citizens, subjects, and aliens, and make the non-whites a lower caste. But that can probably be done culturally and through the economic system for the most part, rather than officially. As for political rights, you know I’m a neocameralist.