FSTDT

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

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.

Third, 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 co2uld 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.

Fourth, 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.

Confessions of a “Transphobic”

I never had a chance to read Gavin McInnes’ article “Transphobia is Perfectly Natural,” since Thought Catalog has taken it down. (But we can read outraged reactions from around the web.) McInnes has apparently been hounded out of his job as chief creative officer of something called Rooster, which I am too unhip to have heard of.

I am sure McInnes’ article is somewhere out there on the web, and I am sure someone will send it to me eventually. But I don’t want to read it until I have written my own take on the subject matter. Frankly, I am jealous that McInnes wrote on this first, since I have been kicking a similar idea around for years. I did not write it out, because up until May of this year, I was living in San Francisco, and the trannies there are far scarier than the antifa. Like the lesbians of Berkeley, they can reduce a man to a skeleton in under 30 seconds.

“Transphobia,” like “homophobia,” is an inherently dishonest term. “Phobia” derives from the Greek “phobos” or fear, and phobias are by definition irrational fears. But transphobia is neither irrational nor a fear. It is an emotion, of course. But it is a completely natural, normal, and healthy emotion. Which is as rational as any emotion gets.

Specifically, transphobia is a perfectly natural feeling of revulsion at men who have their dicks chopped off and women who have their tits chopped off — among many, many other things — in order to “change their sex.” Of course, one’s sex is determined by one’s chromosomes, so “sex changes” do not change anyone’s sex. They merely transform a man into a butchered simulacrum of a woman, or a woman into a butchered simulacrum of a man.

Again: sex-changes are futile, because one cannot change one’s chromosomes. One can only butcher and drug one’s body to look like someone of the opposite sex. And when many transsexuals finally awaken to the horror and futility of what they have done, they kill themselves.

The revulsion I feel toward transsexuals is not based on “meanness” or “ignorance” as liberals would have it, but on sympathy. When a healthy person sees another in pain, he recoils in horror because he feels the pain of others (which is the literal meaning of sympathy — suffering with others). I love my penis, and the thought of losing it fills me with horror. And when one sees self-inflicted suffering, it is natural to feel loathing and anger as well, because it didn’t have to happen. And by hurting themselves, self-mutilators hurt the rest of us as well. I am a bit overly sensitive, perhaps, but I even cringe at the sight of tattoos, partly in pity, partly in revulsion.

The kind of people who don’t feel sympathy and horror at radical forms of self-mutilation are, frankly, sick. They lack elementary sympathy for the pain of others. They may even take pleasure in the pain of others. Or, like most liberals who champion trannies as the next great minority crusade, they take pleasure in the discomfort that sexual mutilation causes “those people” — conservatives, Christians, rednecks, hicks, etc. — the hated others of the liberal loveys. Trannies and other freaks are just tools in the culture war. But in this case, the enemy is not the Right side of the culture, but nature herself — mental and moral health, which apparently drives today’s Left to paroxysms of sadistic rage. Because they’re evil, of course.

After a healthy person feels sympathy-based revulsion at sexual self-mutilation, the first thought that pops into his mind is, “These people must be crazy.” But let’s just withhold judgment for a bit and ask the transsexuals themselves what they think. Interestingly enough, they too claim to suffer from mental illness, namely the feeling of being a man trapped in a woman’s body, or vice versa. So the real issue here is not whether these poor people suffer from a mental illness — they admit it themselves — but rather what sort of treatment they should seek. Self-mutilation is not the cure for mental illness, but just another symptom.

If a man thinks he is Jesus, we do not crucify him. If a man thinks he is Napoleon, we do not crown him emperor. If a man thinks he is a woman, why then should we go along with it? Shouldn’t we try to help him get over his desire to mutilate himself, just as we help anorexics to stop starving themselves, and cutters to stop carving themselves?

And since when is it consistent with the Hippocratic oath — the “First, Do No Harm” part — for doctors to mutilate healthy bodies and turn them into parodies of the opposite sex?

What would I do with transsexuals? First of all, let me say that I have actually known two people who have embarked upon this path. To all appearances they were good-looking heterosexual men who dropped out of sight and then re-emerged as not-so-good-looking women. But all their likable traits and shared interests were disconcertingly intact. So transsexuals are not some abstract other. They are very real to me. This is me being real: having a real reaction to real people undergoing real, drastic transformations. I feel compassion and revulsion toward the transsexuals themselves, and righteous indignation toward the people who enable and exploit them.

So what would my policy be?

First, I would simply say “No.” Every decent society should provide healthcare for the mentally and physically ill. When people are mentally ill, they cannot make responsible decisions for themselves. Thus a decent society needs to exercise paternalism in the interests of the mentally ill. And the primary interest of the mentally ill is to get better, to triumph over their delusions, not to be humored in them, much less aided in radical and futile forms of self-mutilation. Again, self-mutilation is a symptom of mental illness, not a cure. Compassion and responsibility require that we simply say “no.”

Second, the mutilation of healthy bodies is contrary to the proper aim of the medical profession. Thus every doctor who performs sex change operations should be stripped of his license and drummed out of the profession. Sex changes should be outlawed, and any doctor who performs them should be jailed. Indeed, the same treatment should be meted out to doctors who perform any and all forms of genital mutilation.

Third, we must keep a sense of perspective. I don’t hate transsexuals. (I am rather proud of my book Confessions of a Reluctant Hater, so if I did hate them, I would have no problem admitting it.) Transsexuals aren’t evil or threatening. They are not “sinners.” They are simply sick people who should be cared for, not hated or harmed.

The truly evil people are those who exploit these unfortunates for gain: the doctors who mutilate them for money and the Leftists who use them as the latest totems of diversity, progress, and enlightenment — thereby revealing that their true enemy is not injustice or inequality but nature, health, and sanity. Craziest of all, though, is a society that consents to be ruled by such monsters.