The Republican Party is very confused about its identity, because white Americans are very confused about their identity.

A slut from a talent firm who is very trash is considered “authentic.”

Actually, she is authentic, in that she is an authentic garbage can skank from a talent agency.

BBC News:

The ex-husband of Republican politician Lauren Boebert has been arrested, days after an apparent row with her in a restaurant.

Jayson Boebert was arrested in Colorado on charges including misdemeanour assault and criminal mischief.

Police had been investigating the apparent altercation at Silt restaurant on Saturday but have not said whether the arrest is connected.

Lauren and Jayson Boebert were divorced last year.

Jail records seen by the BBC show Mr Boebert was arrested and subsequently released.

He had been the one who called police following the restaurant incident and claimed he was a victim of domestic violence during the altercation, according to CBS News, the BBC’s partner in the US.

Mr Boebert had told the Denver Post he had no intention of pressing charges, and that he and his ex-wife “were working through a difficult conversation“.

lol

Following news that police were investigating the incident earlier this week, Ms Boebert said: “I didn’t punch Jayson in the face and no-one was arrested.”

In her statement released on Sunday prior to Mr Boebert’s arrest, she added that she was consulting a lawyer about false claims being made against her.

That’s “Jason” with a “J-A-Y.”

Of course it is.

A couple months ago, she jacked off her new boyfriend during a theatre performance.

Never forget that Lauren Boebert did this in a public theater while children were present. Why is Bobo still on the ballot? Colorado #trump #maga pic.twitter.com/WzP1Mrnjx1

— Coach D (@CoachD_Speaks) December 20, 2023

Then she calls up her ex-husband and gets in a bar fight with him.

We should be ruled by a king.

We should have just made Elvis “King of America.”

People would have voted to surrender all democratic authority to one man: Elvis.

Instead of dying from drugs, he would have produced a male heir with Linda Thompson.

Wouldn’t that have been much better?

If Elvis would have been made King of America in 1972?

Nixon should have agreed to surrender the presidency… “on the one condition that Elvis be anointed King of America.”

Instead, Nixon offered an unconditional surrender, and America was surrendered to the Jews.

Watters: Did you have too much to drink?

Boebert: Not at all. I was very excited about the musical

Watters: You were so enthralled you got carried away?

Boebert: It’s been 20 years since I was in the dating scene and back then, there were not infrared cameras pic.twitter.com/gBEPfIc7gN

— Acyn (@Acyn) September 23, 2023

Previously: Boebert Issues Second Apology for Drunken Beetlejuice Groping Incident

Seriously: how is this bitch supposed to know she’s not supposed to stroke a guy’s dick in a theater?

She’s been out of the game. She don’t know the rules of the day.

She thought a bit of dick stroking, a bit of titty squeezing, that ain’t no big thing.

Now people all like “oh, why you been doing it like that?”

She ain’t even know. Lay up off a bitch.

New York Post:

Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) on Friday denied that alcohol had anything to do with her behavior during a production of “Beetlejuice” last week that saw her and her date escorted out of a Denver theater.

“What happened? You just had a little too much to drink?” Fox News host Jesse Watters bluntly asked Boebert, 36, during an interview on “Jesse Watters Primetime” about the incident.

“No, Jesse. Not at all,” the lawmaker responded. “I was very excited about the actual musical. Huge fan of Beetlejuice. Anyone should go and see the musical if it’s in your area, and please let me know how it ends because I’ve yet to see the end.”

Boebert acknowledged that she got “a little bit” carried away during the play and noted that “it’s been 20 years since I was in the dating scene, and back then there were not infrared cameras watching my every move.”

Security footage from Denver’s Buell Theatre captured the recently divorced congresswoman vaping, obstructing the view of others and seemingly groping and being groped by her date – Aspen bar owner Quinn Gallagher, 46 – before being kicked out of the Sept. 10. show.

At least this bitch keeps it 100.

All these other sluts try to act like they ain’t sluts.

She’s like “well, I’m a complete slut, so, yeah, I mean – what do you want from me? I did a bunch of slut ads to get elected, and that’s what people voted for, so I’m just keeping it real.”

Honestly, this whole thing is just a bunch of pearl-clutching nonsense.

No one actually cares if this bitch is doing this. In fact, it’s funny.

It draws attention to how goofy and decadent this country is (that is a situation Lauren Boebert did not create, by the way – she’s just a part of it, as we all are).

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 theatre. Boebert blamed the events on stress from her divorce (though it would seem obvious that the opposite is true).

What’s more disgusting than Lauren Boebert behaving like a skank is the @GOP’s silence on her behavior #BoboTheHoho #BoboTheHo #BoBoTheClown pic.twitter.com/zkYqybKKwA

— Piyush Mittal 🇺🇸🇺🇦🟧🌊 (@piyushmittal) September 17, 2023

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.

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:

Can’t Colorado find SOME Republican not trashy and stupid to represent them in the 3rd congressional district?https://t.co/rnWQRoWD0s

— Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) September 16, 2023

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 seen 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 often times 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 seen 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 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 is 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 conincidence, 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 corporation, 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.

Reminder: @AOC hates Israel, but can’t tell us why.pic.twitter.com/qcNLuTFzoY

— Governor Dill (@TheGreenOldDill) January 27, 2023

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 – James Cameron’s wife 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 let’s 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 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.

The new CBS documentary we reported on yesterday is turning out to be a very big deal. This was the first example of on the ground embedded reporting by any Western news outlet that I’ve seen since the war started. Journalists were afraid to embed since the Ukraine had a policy of killing all Western journalists they found.

It’s not clear how the CBS crew go through without being murdered, but what they found was shocking – or rather, it was shocking to the retards who haven’t been paying any attention to anything that is happening, and have just been believing retarded children’s slogans.

And…. I’m just realizing now that the CBS News tweet has been deleted.

Here’s the link:

https://twitter.com/CBSNews/status/1555701550319898625

Totally dead link.

It says “please try searching for something else.”

Like: “please search for something that says the Ukraine war is real and good and we’re fighting for democracy and everything is totally fine.”

I’m going to have to look into this and see what’s happened – was the entire documentary deleted? Or just the tweet?

Anyway, we’ll get back to you on that. Right now, let’s talk about what the lawmakers are saying.

RT:

Republican lawmakers are feeling vindicated for opposing a $40 billion Ukraine aid package after a CBS News report showed that only 30% of the Western weapons flooding into the country are actually making it to the front lines in Kiev’s conflict with Russia.

“This [is] one of the reasons I voted ‘no,’” US Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Georgia) said on Twitter in a retweet of the CBS News post. Greene was among 57 House Republicans who voted against the massive aid bill, which passed overwhelmingly in May with the support of all Democrats and most GOP lawmakers. Eleven Republicans opposed the bill in the Senate, where it passed by an 86-11 margin.

This one of the reasons I voted NO.
It was never about the Ukrainian people. https://t.co/Kb3kAQzuDl

— Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene🇺🇸 (@RepMTG) August 6, 2022

It was great to see my friend, @alexstein99, at @CPAC today! pic.twitter.com/6a5i2PNWa8

— Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene🇺🇸 (@RepMTG) August 7, 2022

The CBS story noted that with nearly $60 billion in US and Western European aid approved for Ukraine since Russia’s military offensive began in February, most of the weaponry has failed to get through to Ukrainian fighters. Getting weapons to the troops involves navigating a complex network of “power lords, oligarchs [and] political players,” the outlet cited Lithuanian aid group founder Jonas Ohman as saying. Amnesty International senior crisis adviser Donatella Rovera told CBS that “there is really no information” on where the weapons are going.

Representative Lauren Boebert (R-Colorado) said such scrutiny had been dismissed prior to the CBS report. “How many people were called Russian bots for saying this exact same thing since March? Now, when CBS says it, it’s perfectly fine. Whatever the case, glad the facts are out now. The majority of the Ukraine aid is a scam.”

It’s apparently not “perfectly fine,” because the tweet is deleted.

How many people were called Russian bots for saying this exact same thing since March?

Now, when CBS says it, it’s perfectly fine.

Whatever the case, glad the facts are out now. The majority of the Ukraine aid is a scam. https://t.co/8AdHTA4n4i

— Lauren Boebert (@laurenboebert) August 6, 2022

But yeah, it’s definitely different. You can delete a tweet but you can’t un-tweet it.

The goyim already know.

US Senator Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) delayed the Senate’s vote on the Ukraine aid bill by insisting on adding a provision appointing an inspector general to monitor how the money was being spent. His colleagues refused to include the oversight requirement and passed the massive package a few days later. A US intelligence official told CNN in April that arms shipments were dropping “into a big black hole” once they reached Ukraine.

Greene, Boebert and other lawmakers who voted against the aid bill were pilloried by critics for failing to support Ukraine. After Greene argued that the US government was focused on sending billions of dollars in aid to Ukraine at a time when American mothers couldn’t even buy formula for their babies, Democrats accused her of standing “with President Putin in the face of Russian aggression.” Representative Jamie Raskin (D-Maryland) said she was “repeating Putin’s propaganda and disinformation” and “appeasing imperialist assaults on sovereign nations.”

Yes, I remember well when that Democrat Jew said that anyone who asks any questions at all about what is going on with these tens of billions of dollars in weapons being send to the Ukraine was a traitor to America because they were a traitor to the Ukraine, and the Ukraine is actually America because we both share the same values of a democracy in a rules-based order of democracies.

One for the ages. Rep. Jamie Raskin rips Marjorie Taylor Greene to shreds- buckle up, it’s brutal. pic.twitter.com/3gWnUq4MWe

— Mike Sington (@MikeSington) April 28, 2022

It was sickening watching that Jew trash Marjorie like that – calling her a Russian agent for caring about Americans – and it made me wonder how it is possible that 100% of American conservatives are not active anti-Semites.

Tearing down the statues of our Founders was not just an aesthetic matter. It was always about undermining the foundations of the country.

RT:

Visitors to the National Archives website looking for the US founding documents are now greeted with labels warning of ‘harmful language’. It isn’t clear when the tags were added, but the move has angered some Republicans.

“Harmful Language Alert” labels can be found on pages displaying the scanned versions of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, as well as the first 10 amendments, known as the Bill of Rights.

The addition caught the eye of Congresswoman Lauren Boebert (R-Colorado), who pointed it out on Tuesday.

The National Archives have now put a disclaimer on their website that our historical documents may include Harmful Content.

They even slapped this warning on the Constitution.

We tried to tell you the Left wanted to get rid of it! pic.twitter.com/UeJtqgudMm

— Lauren Boebert (@laurenboebert) September 7, 2021

She wasn’t the only one. Ken Cuccinelli, former deputy Homeland Security secretary in the Trump administration, caught the labeling of the Constitution on Monday – a public holiday in the US.

“What are we becoming?” Cuccinelli asked in a tweet. “Are you kidding me?”

What are we becoming? Now the National Archives posts a "Harmful Language Alert" on its website when you pull up the U.S. Constitution?!

Are you kidding me?#Constitution pic.twitter.com/GOLukUBUts

— Ken Cuccinelli (@KenCuccinelli) September 6, 2021

It was no joke, however. The link on the label leads to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) statement on “potentially harmful content,” defined as reflecting “racist, sexist, ableist, misogynistic/misogynoir, and xenophobic opinions and attitudes” or being “discriminatory towards or exclude diverse views on sexuality, gender, religion, and more,” among other criteria.

The archivists are told to inform the users about the presence and origin of such “harmful content,” update descriptions with “more respectful terms” and make “an institutional commitment to diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility.”

It was unclear when the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights were labeled as potentially harmful. Back in July, during its traditional reading of the Declaration on the anniversary of its adoption – July 4, 1776 – National Public Radio added a disclaimer for the very first time, saying that “the words in the document land differently” after “last summer’s protests and our national reckoning on race.”

This was a reference to Black Lives Matter protests that began in May 2020, after the death of George Floyd in Minnesota, quickly attributed by activist groups to institutional racism in policing and the entire US social and political system. Democrats Joe Biden and Kamala Harris backed the protesters; in April, after a Minneapolis police officer was convicted of murdering Floyd, now President Biden and Vice President Harris hailed the verdict and demanded reforms in the name of racial justice.

In a series of tweets in July, NPR said the Declaration of Independence contained “flaws and deeply ingrained hypocrisies,” pointing in particular to “a racist slur against indigenous Americans” – presumably referring to the line about “merciless Indian savages” the colonists complained about to the British crown.

Yeah, this is their argument: the number one thing we can draw from the entire foundation of the United States of America is that merciless Indians were called savages, and that is hurtful to the feelings of merciless Indians. So basically, we just have to throw out the entire country and have globalist communism instead – because we certainly can’t risk someone’s feelings being hurt.

Everything is about making sure that George Floyd never happens again.

From now on, we only need the words of Floyd to guide us: “mommy, mommy, mommy – ouchie, ouchie, ouchie.”