Christopher Michael Langan, the man with possibly the world's highest IQ, talks openly and frankly about the great replacement.

Why do people still give brownoids like AA attention anyways?

https://gab.com/sup_kommandant_irusk/posts/109120089798618288

This week 81 years ago, John Curtin at the helm of the Australian Labor Party mobilised all of Australia's industries and resources to build up and maintain our defence against the Japanese invader.

"All the advancing that will be done will be by Australians for it is Australians who stand for the policy of advancing Australia."

Just after Hughes got back from Paris, he made this monumental speech to the Australian parliament, going on to explain the sort of battle he waged at the international bargaining table. Among other things, Hughes fought relentlessly against the racial-equality declaration and to secure Australia’s claim over New Guinea and other islands out of a fear of Japanese expansion. He also briefly goes over why Australia fought in the first place, and is something Cochrane further explores in his book ‘Best We Forget.’

The Japanese were never able to expand just beyond Australia’s Northern Territory; White Australia was secured, and defended a second time around by John Curtin during WW2. In the end, Hughes was successful, and his hard work paid off. The reality is that if Hughes did not campaign as much as he did for Australia, then the islands would’ve been international clay, with Australia and the South Pacific being free game. This is what the Europeans wanted, and on this account Hughes both fought and criticised the British and Americans at the peace table, saying:

“Australia stands after four years of dreadful war, her interests not guaranteed, her rights of self-government menaced, and with no provision made for indemnities. That is the position and it can hardly be regarded as satisfactory.”

He pretty much fought against every Japanese proposal, and any that would hurt White Australia, which were all supported by the aforementioned groups. Originally, Australia entered the war because there was an agreement that we would supported the British Empire militarily in exchange for their naval defense of Australia (and control of the Pacific). Nevertheless, the distrust between Britain/Japan and Australia grew stronger after the war, reaching levels comparable to those of the of the early 1900s. It was then shown that Britain didn’t care for Australia all that much, so Hughes had to be the one to champion the cause of Australian rights.

Now, here’s some more important context behind the quote, which a lot of Australians on our side like to ignore, preferring to hold onto the idea that we merely fought for the British and that the fight was not in our interest. This is the false, as Peter Cochrane shows in the book ‘Best We Forget’ by explaining another huge part of the story. Make of it what you will, but this is crucial to understanding Australia’s part in the war:

“Hughes returned to Australia promptly after the conference, arriving in Fremantle on 23 August and travelling by train to Melbourne, his every stop besieged by welcoming crowds.16 He was a conquering hero to those who flocked to see him, many among them returned soldiers. But otherwise, he came home to a distracted and divided land, to a people riven by vast human loss, by economic hardship, state repression, and fierce antagonisms of class and caste. On 10 September, he tabled in the House of Representatives a copy of the Treaty of Versailles, a document, he said, ‘of monumental importance’. His marathon ‘Treaty of Peace’ speech traversed the mighty struggle in Europe and Palestine, and the heroic part played by the Australians. He spoke at length of how the treaty was arrived at, and what it meant, and of the vital right he had secured, of Australia having its own representation: ‘By this recognition Australia became a nation,’ he declared. He made no mention of Gallipoli. First to last, not a word. In addition to that glaring omission, it was a remarkable speech for several reasons, notably the implacably nationalist as opposed to imperial quality of the formulation. The word ‘loyalty’ was not used. There was no talk of blood ties or of devotion to empire. Empire was mentioned only in passing. And little was said of Britain’s fight, save at Villers-Bretonneux where the Australians advanced, said Hughes, through ‘the retreating soldiery of the defeated British army’.

Here is how he described Australia’s purpose in the Great War:

We went into this conflict for our own national safety, in order to insure our national integrity, which was in dire peril, to safeguard our liberties, and those free institutions of government which, whatever may be our political opinions, are essential to our national life, and to maintain those ideals which we have nailed to the very topmost of our flagpole—White Australia, and those other aspirations of this young Democracy.

Hughes declared his continued opposition to Wilson’s Fourteen Points. He insisted that they guaranteed none of the things for which Australia had fought, and yet the things for which Australia fought had only been secured, finally, in the course of the conference. ‘The great rampart of islands stretching around the north east of Australia’, those islands ‘must be held by us or by some power in whom we have absolute confidence’, he told his colleagues. The mandate had secured this, bequeathing to Australia ‘the sovereign power which was necessary for our salvation’.
White Australia, too, was secure. Hughes asked the honourable members on both sides of the House to consider the Paris conference—an assemblage of European powers and also the representatives of hundreds of millions of coloured peoples—to consider the difficulty such people might have in appreciating the ideal of white Australia, the ideal of a mere five million people who had dared to say that ‘this great continent is ours’ and none shall enter lest they be white:

I venture to say, therefore, that perhaps the greatest thing which we have achieved, under such circumstances and in such an assemblage, is the policy of a White Australia. On this matter, I know that I speak for most, if not all, of the people of Australia.

Hughes then spoke at length on the race purity of the nation and its uniqueness in this regard among the nations of the world. ‘After all, this is the foundation of all that Australia stands for,’ he said. For no other nation was pure in this way, pure in blood, pure in language, pure in culture. A white citadel: one people, one race, one tongue.”

TLDR: the Great War, just like WW2, on Australia’s part, was fought to secure White Australia and prevent Asian expansionism and domination in the South Pacific. Without brave men like Billy Hughes and John Curtin standing up for White Australia, Japan would’ve gone far beyond bombing just Darwin, Townsville, Mossman and Broome in the 40s, attempting to gain control of Port Moresby, etc. and probably would’ve done it and other horrible things long before WW2.

This action by Curtin and the federal parliament to assert our national interest is commonly held by Nativists to be the most clearly articulated declaration of Australian Independence from the Imperial power of the United Kingdom. It is for this reason, it has become tradition to call the 23 February 1942 Australia’s ‘Independence Day’ as it was on this day that Australia, likely for the first time had firmly asserted its own interest above that of Imperial interest.

https://ausnatives.org/curtin-and-australias-independence-day/

The same people who claim the Edmonton Police can't use DNA to determine the skin tone of a criminal from 2019 celebrated "science" determining (via DNA) that the original inhabitants of the British Isles had black skin 10,000 years ago.

Zelensky is now openly asking NATO to launch an unprovoked nuclear strike on Russia. Does that sound like a man who is winning a war?

NEW - Ukraine's Zelensky calls on NATO to launch "preemptive strikes" against Russia to "eliminate the possibility" of a Russian nuclear strike.

Zelensky’s press secretary, Serhii Nikiforov, clarified that the Ukrainian president did not call for a nuclear strike on Russia.

“The president was speaking about the period before February 24. Preventative measures should have been used at that time to prevent Russia from unleashing a war. I will remind you that the only measures discussed at that time were preventative sanctions,” he said.

Full video and context of what Zelensky said to the audience at the Lowy Institute today:

https://youtu.be/9plcAPFQrHY?t=2643

@disclosetv

The Australian Natives' Association is pleased to present the first part of a series of Australian History videos in the series - A Year to Remember.

Please bookmark and watch the below playlist from 1931 - 1939

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLyfxyd23nk1iAApkE6Eb821kfVFh9mJOv

Kanye name dropping Jews and Israel