Grimy Hoe Lauren Boebert Did Public Dick-Stroking of a Dude Who Owns a Faggot Bar

Andrew Anglin September 17, 2023

The future of the conservative movement

On Friday, Congressman Lauren Boebert, who is supposed to be far-right but is currently divorcing her husband, made a drunken scene at a Beetlejuice show in Denver with her new boyfriend.

The trailer hoe Boebert is seen vaping, yelling, and standing up. She grabs her boyfriend’s dick, and then he grabs her tits and she holds up her hands to keep his hands there (and apply pressure – we all know the move, which all women do when a man they like grabs their breasts in public).

The couple was eventually asked to leave the theater. Boebert blamed the events on stress from her divorce (though it would seem obvious that the opposite is true).

There are several different things you could say about this situation. It’s all very standard, however. Every woman files for divorce and then goes on a drug and alcohol fueled sex rampage. Boebert is 36. This is a pretty standard age for this to happen. Women start to age, and they want to feel attractive, they want to have fun like they did when they were teenagers.

Lauren Boebert, like most American women, blew up her family totally because she wanted to go on a drunken sex rampage.

Boebert got pregnant when she was 16 by some guy named “Jayson” – that’s “Jason” with a “J-A-Y.” She then dropped out of high school and worked at McDonald’s before eventually marrying the baby daddy. You can see that she felt several years of “slutting it up” were stolen from her, and you can see how that when she’s closing in on 40, she feels a need to go out and act like a teenager. The only thing that ever kept women from doing this in the past was social convention. Along with male authority, there was also always an army of post-menopausal women monitoring the behavior of younger women.

See:

Women are born whores and really have no personal ambitions beyond getting drunk, dancing around and making a big spectacle, and being an object of male sexual interest. That is the full complexity of the human female. They are purely sensual beings. Deep as mud puddles, the lot of them. Base female nature stands in stark contrast to the human male’s struggles with metaphysics, guilt, ambition, honor, and existential dread.

As it turns out, the guy she is dating, who was participating in this drunken scene at the musical, Quinn Gallagher, 46, co-owns a bar which regularly hosts homosexual events, including drag queen shows. The bar is called “Hooch” (because of course it’s called that).

Here are some ads for homo events posted to social media:

The standard take on this is “oh, she’s a conservative but she is getting a divorce, doing public sex acts, and dating some guy who runs an anal club??? Doesn’t sound very conservative to me!” That take, like more or less every take produced by the mainstream conservative commentariat, is retarded.

In truth, there is no such thing as a “conservative woman” or a “liberal woman.” There is one kind of woman, and it is the kind of woman who likes to make herself the center of attention, to have fun, to be sexualized in public, to create gigantic messes. If you ever watch an interview with a political woman (with maybe some notable exceptions that I can’t think of), you will find that they simply repeat things men have said. There is never any depth, and if it’s a long form interview, they start to get confused, and will oftentimes go in circles, returning to talking points they’ve memorized.

Joe Rogan has interviewed several “political women,” if you want a glimpse of “long form woman.” They have pre-recorded responses to things, and if some question comes up that they don’t have a response logged for, they will give an unrelated answer. Obviously, if a man is asked a question he hasn’t thought about before, he will think about it. He might say something like “yeah, that’s interesting…” and then pause while his brain processes an answer. Conversely, a woman’s brain will recognize during the asking of the question that she doesn’t have a memorized answer for it, so she will reply immediately with something like “well, I just think…” and then deflect the question with some unrelated thing (which may be sort of related – women have very good memories, so she will scan for the prepared answer that seems most similar to the question she doesn’t have an answer for).

Women do not have beliefs because they do not have convictions. They are not compelled in the way that men are compelled. Therefore, politics are impossible for them to understand or care about, as at least real politics relate to convictions. Most women who talk about politics, you will note, are only interested in issues that directly affect their personal lives, such as abortion, or which provide a platform for them to draw attention to themselves and signal their high morality by siding with the establishment (BLM, immigration, gun control, etc.). There are some women who go into conservative politics because they realize they can do the same thing – draw attention to themselves. To Lauren Boebert, there is no difference between making a scene in Congress by going on TV yelling about Kevin McCarthy, and making at scene at Beetlejuice by yelling, vaping, and grabbing a guy’s dick. It’s all “mememememememe – look at ME!”

Women are not aware that other people exist, really. To every woman, the world revolves around her. Everything that happens only happens in relation to her and her feelings.

I understand men mostly through analyzing myself, as my own thoughts are the only ones I can analyze, and then seeing these same patterns in other men. When I consider what I have chosen as a career, which has caused me a lot of problems, it is clearly more than some generic “desire to do the right thing.” I have a desire to assert myself and to affect the world around me, as I believe I exist for a reason, that I exist inside of a world, and therefore must pursue some purpose that goes beyond myself. In my own thoughts, it is self-evident that truth, justice, and beauty are divine virtues, and if I am to have meaning to my life, I must pursue the manifestation of these virtues. Suffering and hardship are acceptable in pursuit of this end, and it may be that the suffering and hardship are evidence of the purpose, and have meaning in themselves. I think constantly about death, in that I am aware that I will die, and I’m aware that all of the things I’ve done will be all of the things I did. I am internally compelled to make those things count. Pursuing pleasure (or a lack of pain) would leave me feeling hollow. The pursuit of God and an afterlife are a part of this, but, at least for me, came after the desire to do things that have meaning. God is an explanation for the existing drives. “You have a drive to defend and promote truth, justice, and beauty because the spirit of God lives in you” is a logical explanation for my own internal processes.

What we have seen in Western society is a feminization of men, where men prefer the feminine virtues of safety, comfort, and conformity. However, when men do accept these feminine values, and take on this role of choosing wealth over truth, they appear to be aware that they are doing this, and seem to have guilt over it when they are forced to acknowledge what they’ve done. Women do not have guilt over anything internal, as they are incapable of imagining that it is possible for them to do anything wrong. They do not appear to believe that they have control over their own behavior, and instead view their lives simply as a series of things being done to them by others. They cannot comprehend personal responsibility, let alone something much more abstract, such as honor or aspiration.

From my observation, a big part of the reason that so many men have such an inaccurate perception of women is that they are (probably subconsciously) basing their understanding of women in part on female characters in entertainment media. These female characters in media are almost always written by men, and men project things onto them. I tell men to think of a single situation in their life where:

  • A woman has offered interesting conversation, or
  • A woman has shown remorse (or taken responsibility) for anything she’s done wrong.

We all know a lot of women, and none of us has ever experienced those things. Sometimes, a woman will say something interesting, and then you’ll try to develop that through conversation, and she will be incapable of doing so. Then, later, you find out she had previously been dating some interesting man, and so she’d picked up on some interesting thing he’d said and repeated it to you. (Seriously – if a woman ever says something interesting, ask her about her last boyfriend and what his profession was, what his interests were. You’ll find the source of the statement.) Also, sometimes a woman will say “I’m sorry,” but it is always a way to get out of some situation. If you ask “why are you sorry?”, she will go on to explain that whatever she did was somehow not her fault. She will never say “I was wrong.” (Obviously, in certain specific situations, she might use those words, but it’s rare and when it happens, again, if you question her on it, she will blame you, blame others, blame circumstances – whatever.)

All of this makes women totally incapable of actually understanding politics, philosophy, or anything that involves a moral imperative. It also makes it obvious why the elite are comfortable with men becoming more like women, why they ban cigarettes but encourage the use of hard drugs and pornography. They ban cigarettes – which, just so you understand, boost testosterone – while allowing processed food that kills you a lot quicker than cigarettes ever could. (No doctor will argue that obesity is healthier than chain-smoking, even whilst you would have to assume that based on the social norms around smoking vs. those around obesity.)

Lauren Boebert may have been recruited by donors for her job as a Congressman through a modeling agency. There is a whole conspiracy theory surrounding this, which I don’t know if I fully endorse, but a lot of women who ended up in Republican politics had profiles on the same modeling site, “Explore Talent.”

It’s of course possible that this is a coincidence, and it’s just a matter of women wanting to be models. This appears to be a relatively popular website. Even if it is a coincidence, however, it shows that women are women, and this political stuff is just a form of modeling for women. It is a way to draw attention to themselves.

Before politics:

After politics:

It’s retarded to have women in politics.

Someone could argue “well, even if this is the truth about the nature of women, you can use them for your own purposes.” That would be fine enough if it were true, but it is not true. Look at Marjorie Taylor Greene. She was great. She was aggressively pushing all of this crazy stuff, she went to a Nick Fuentes event, she was against the war and so on. Then she flipped on everything.

It’s the same story with AOC. I am not a leftist, but insofar as I agree with leftists on anything, I agree with the anti-war, anti-Israel, anti-international corporations, anti-free trade leftists of ye olden times. AOC sold herself as a leftist of that type, and then became best friends with Nancy Pelosi and started voting for wars and more money for the baby-killing Israeli Jews.

Having women in conservative politics also undermines the entire right-wing agenda, which is supposed to be about traditional values. The Bible says that women are supposed to be modest, and to be quiet in public. Your right-wing political movement is not doing very good if you’ve got a bunch of women running around making a scene.

We do not want women in authority. We all grew up with a mommy. When you go through puberty, your mommy is no longer the authority, and you should never in your life have another woman in authority over you. It’s dehumanizing to be a grown man and have some woman asserting herself as your mommy.

No woman on earth has a right to tell any man on earth what to do, beyond that brief window when you are under your mother. And in that situation, at least in theory, the woman is simply exercising the authority of your father while he’s at work.

On the Necessity of Dehumanizing Women with Vulgarly Sexual Language

People sometimes complain about the vulgarity on this website.

Stuff like this: “The Guardian Says Democracy Fails If People Have Free Access to Information.”

It is my very strong view that all of these women in the public are a type of prostitute. Therefore, especially on a website like this, which is focused on putting forward opposition to the prevailing modern social and political orthodoxy in an ostentatious way, it is obvious that women who make the decision to put themselves in a public position should be demeaned sexually.

A prostitute is selling herself, selling her body. She is doing it for money, but she is also doing it for social capital and attention from men. Prostitution also involves catering to a male fantasy (the idea of an “intellectual woman” is definitely first and foremost a male fantasy). Being a woman in public life has all the benefits of being a whore – money and attention – without any of the downsides.

Prostitutes forego their duty as a wife and mother to go around having fun and making money for having fun. This is exactly what every woman in public life is doing. The only reason they are able to do this is because they are women, and they have these special privileges, which men give them for sexual reasons. It would be extremely difficult to find a woman that can actually compete with a man in any field. But men have a desire to protect women, because they are women, so they allow these women in these positions, and they do not face the criticism a man would face.

Imagine if there was a man who acted like Marjorie Taylor Greene.

It’s impossible to imagine.

Imagine a male progressive doing AOC’s apology interview for her anti-Israel positions and babbling incoherently.

No one can imagine that either.

In any country on earth, a teenage girl can make the same money as a male professional in his 50s by working as a hooker. Young “escorts” in America charge between $500 and $800 an hour (the rates are higher in America, because of the lunatic laws – created by empowered women, by the way – that make prostitution very complicated; in a real world situation, however, young, thin women in America would still be getting $200 to $400 an hour).

Just like a prostitute is using her body to get what amounts to free money and a lot of attention from men, women in politics, or in other forms of public life, are doing the exact same thing. None of them have anything to offer.

(NOTE: I get accused of speaking too much in absolutes. It’s really a stylistic choice, which I think most people understand, but obviously, there are exceptions to every rule. JK Rowling wrote novels that made a lot of money. I don’t think they were good novels, but they did make a lot of money. I’m sure there are other examples of women who do work that can’t be reduced to using vaginal privilege to gain advantage. But they are very, very rare, to the point where I can’t think of any other example right now. Oh, wait – one of James Cameron’s ex-wives made some good movies. I can’t remember her name. I’m sure there are others. But everyone gets what I’m saying: the overwhelming majority of women in any workplace are utterly incompetent, and actually a detriment to their place of work, and yet them are able to keep these jobs by exploiting their protected status.)

Complaining that my articles are too vulgar strikes me as pearl-clutching, virtue-signaling, faggot nonsense, quite frankly. I write comedy materials for teenage boys. Puritanism is just Judaism for white people.

Using sexually degrading language to talk about women in public life is a way to remind everyone what is going on with this situation, in a way that can’t really be denied. Everyone gets it, on a visceral level: women, by design, are sexual objects. The only way they relate to the public world is through sex, in some form.

Lauren Boebert goes out in public, as a public figure who knows she’s being watched, and lets some guy feel her up while she’s stroking his dick. All of these public women cake on huge amounts of makeup.

I’m not the one doing the sexualizing. I’m just commenting on something obvious, pointing out that it is obvious. Because apparently, people need to be reminded of how obvious this is.

Everything I’ve written here is true. I’ve been writing this same thing for years on end, and untold numbers of people have whined about it. But no one has ever tried to debate me or prove me wrong.

© Copyright Daily Stormer 2023, All Rights Reserved -- Join the Daily Stormer site chat for future updates in case of further domain seizure.