Blair Cottrell 🇦🇺

They say to be careful you don’t go broke acting rich. You should also make sure you don’t become retarded trying to make everyone think you’re a good person.

The listing of the White Australia Party as a prohibited hate group is being reviewed by a parliamentary committee, and public submissions are now open. https://www.noticer.news/white-australia-partys-prohibited-hate-group-listing-under-review/ Follow: @NoticerNews

Intense https://t.me/NoticerNews/3688

Clearly this guy never sat in traffic with Indians

The ADL recently added the phrase ‘goyslop’ to its hate-symbols database.

Might I add that it takes about 3 months to reset your dopamine sensitivity. Some people can recover faster but 90 days is always the general rule for regeneration. https://t.me/realsolbrah/5715

Welcome to diversity. Things that are banned here: -White people -Ideas -Air conditioning

actual news 😳😳

The ‘centre-right’ or whatever you want to call it has a massive cringe issue and its women. Dolled-up women wearing bleached wigs and covered in brown paint on podiums and political podcasts, saying a lot without actually saying anything. I can’t always tell if they’re well-intentioned or not, their motivations are unclear but what I can say is they’re boring and insipid. They’re never interesting, funny or articulate and everything they do manage to say just underpins exactly how little they understand the concept of justice, real solutions and what is necessary. No sensible person wants to listen to a woman’s political opinions, because: a) They’re not even actual opinions, they just say whatever makes them feel or look morally righteous. b) They personalise everything. Every single talking point is brought back to themselves and individual experiences, which don’t matter in politics, and c) They’re usually just selling products (or themselves). Why do men continue to tolerate and perpetuate this shit?

“Ban social media to stop the Nazis, and protect women from anal-tearing.” –Prime Minister of Australia 2026 https://t.me/ausvstheagenda/3945

Lately I’ve been looking at society through a new lens. I was never an economist. I always felt that money was associated with pain but I didn’t think much about the details, I just got busy thinking about people and politics irrespective of money. Knowing what I know now, that was probably a mistake. But over the past year or so I’ve had the opportunity to spend time with a few people who understand money better than I ever did, specifically how to make money. I’ve previously heard a lot about money being debt and illegitimately invented by banks through loans, and while that’s all probably true it doesn’t change the fact we all use money everyday and most of us don’t know how to live without it. We also don’t really understand how it works. We don’t learn about money in the schools and financial reports usually look like intimidating mathematics, so no one gives it much thought because it all seems too difficult to follow. But the reality of money is staggeringly simple and when you understand how people get rich, you start to see one central cog in the money machine which literally runs the entire system. That central cog is problems. Keep reading, this is very simple and it’ll all make perfect sense by the end. Money is made by solving problems or at least temporarily keeping a problem at bay. That problem could be existential, physical or personal, it could be buying food because hunger doesn’t feel nice and starving to death represents a bit of a problem too. You might have a leaking tap you pay a plumber to fix, or an aching knee you buy medicine to alleviate. You probably bought a Netflix subscription to stave off boredom or loneliness. The point is: The more problems you have (or the more you think you have) the more money you spend. People with fewer problems spend less money; it’s harder to get rich in a society if it doesn’t have a lot of problems. Understanding this I began to see why everybody was so sensitive or unwell: Because their vulnerability to insult or disease was extremely profitable. If people pay to alleviate pain, then it makes sense to produce a society where the people are experiencing more pain. This has completely transformed my view of how things work and pretty much explains everything. Why for example would a government running a system like this have any interest in actually solving problems? If an authority structure exists on the basis of taking your money in the form of taxation to solve society’s problems, wouldn’t it make sense for that authority to make the problems bigger? It’s of course important to act as through solutions are coming, but they never do and they never will, because in order for the money to keep “moving up” problems need to remain and there’s plenty of incentive to deliberately make the problems worse. This is really worth thinking about.

“The evil was not in bread and circuses, per se, but in the willingness of the people to sell their rights as free men for full bellies and the excitement of the games which would serve to distract them from the other human hungers which bread and circuses can never appease.” Admiral Ben Moreell, CEC, USN

So I saw this meme going around, like an ironic 4chan style mockery of anti-racist diversity. A panicking 5ft tall woman-cop accidentally shoots a Rabbi, who was walking out of Pornhub HQ of course, after her partner cop named Mohammed is shot via random citizen chimp-out, in Canada (with all the gun laws). The meme seemed overly detailed, so I looked it up. Oh, it’s the news.

To me it was always obvious that “gangster rap” and associated “hood-dwelling” was a fake counterculture. It was clearly propped up by the institutions and meant to ensnare ‘alternative-thinking youths’ into a destructive, go-nowhere existence. I’m glad BLM and hard-Left hysterics have made it obvious to everyone else too.

To me it always obvious that “gangster rap” and associated “hood-dwelling” was a fake counterculture, meant to ensnare ‘alternative-thinking youths’ into a destructive, go-nowhere existence. I’m glad BLM and hard-Left hysterics have made it obvious to everyone else too.

Hear: “I have never felt as wrong, stupid and disempowered as I currently do in this parliament.” She’s obviously not being threatened and isn’t actually “unsafe”. She’s just wrong and no longer feels in control. And that’s a good thing. For people like this, words are only a trick and a means to an end. Don’t fall for it.

You’ll often hear certain women and woman-bureaucrats in particular talk a lot about “feeling safe”. But I’ve noticed that their idea of “feeling safe” has little in common with actual safety. You have to remember that words are just noise and a means to an end. What one creature really means when it spits out a certain word might not have much to do with that word’s literal definition. A normal person would assume the term “safe” means protected from or not exposed to danger or harm, but that’s not what the system-ladies mean when they appeal to safety. “Feeling safe” is a remark associated with control, equality dogma and so-called “inclusive environments” (read: ideology, more women and more migrants). “Feeling unsafe” is the noise made concerning “the Far Right” (read: White guys and the discussion of facts, respectively). But White guys are statistically far less likely to pose any physical threat to women. They’re less likely to assault them, less likely to murder them and almost never rape them. Migrants of certain demographics rape, assault and murder women (and girls) at dramatically higher rates. Actually, the danger migrants pose to females increases in direct proportion to the fewer White guys there are in a respective area. Women can’t and don’t effectively protect other women from harm. Only men will do that and statistically, White men do it most often. Women may literally be more safe when they’re in the company of White guys than they are in any other environment, except perhaps a panic room. The more White guys there are and the fewer migrants, the safer women are. These “hate-facts” are cold data. So what are the government ladies actually talking about when they claim to be “feeling safe” or “unsafe”? Well these terms are not just an imagined female experience, they’re a power-play which ironically just ends up making society far more dangerous for women. If you pay attention, “feeling safe” means: “Feeling right and in control of a verbal exchange.” While “feeling unsafe” means: “Being proven wrong and feeling stupid or without power”. When a woman-bureaucrat in parliament for example says “I feel unsafe” she doesn’t mean she is being threatened or at risk of any measurable harm. She means “I am being made to feel wrong or stupid by a fact, a general consensus or by what someone else is saying.” In summary, it’s far more important for government-women and their equivalent male-effeminates to feel right and in-control than it is to actually be safe. These lawmakers will actually sacrifice the safety of all of society’s women in exchange for power or even just the feeling of power. It’s eery to think that as a country, while importing the third-world we are gleefully shutting down open discussions, censoring facts, limiting speech and banning political parties all on the basis of very obvious female language manipulation.

Wars killing millions were started for much less. https://t.me/NoticerNews/3614