Virginian Perennial Candidate Nathan Larson is Pro Incest, Rape and Pedophillia?

By Penny Hoffmann

37-year-old accountant Nathan Larson is running for U.S Virginian Congress. What really makes him stand out from many candidates is what Mr. Larson and organisations have been saying about him.

According to the Washington Post, “He’s pro-incest, pedophilia, and rape. He’s also running for Congress from his parents’ house”; according to News.com, “HE’S a self-described white supremacist and paedophile who once plotted to kill a US president. Now, he’s running for congress”; and according to The Independent, “A paedophile and a Holocaust denier are running for US Congress, but it may not be time to raise the alarms just yet”.

According to an October 2009 press release by the Colorado United States Attorney’s Office, in December 2008, Larson sent emails to the U.S Secret Service threatening to kill the President :

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

During his 2017 Office campaign Larson labelled himself a “red pill Libertarian”, but was disavowed from the Libertarian Party for his anti-feminist and pro child pornography and marijuana views.
According to the Huffington Post, Larson created Suiped.org, Incelocalypse.today which acted as chat rooms for pedophiles and “violence-minded misogynists”.
According to Huffington Post writers Andy Campbell and Jesselyn Cook, Larson admitted to being part-pedophile, part-writer-about-pedophillia”:
‘When asked whether he’s a pedophile or just writes about pedophilia, he said, “It’s a mix of both. When people go over the top there’s a grain of truth to what they say.”’
According to a Haaretz article written by Omer Benjakob:
“On the libertarian RationalWiki, for example, as a user called Tisane, he edited extensively from 2010 to 2012, contributing to the articles on rape, Holocaust denial and even the North American Man/Boy Love Association. But after defending pro-pedophilia positions, he was banned from there, too. “Why create a child sexual abuse article and then only allow one side of the argument to be presented?” his user protested during a debate on the laissez-faire wiki.”