As reported in today’s New Australian Bulletin Victoria and Perth have joined London and China in using facial recognition technology to spy on their citizens.
Perth had announced the limited use of the system, but Victoria snuck it in without a word to anybody, bypassing any debate about ethics and privacy. Meanwhile, the Gold Coast and Hobart are mulling over whether to adopt the technology.
It is undoubtedly the agenda of Victoria’s Andrews government to perpetuate its police state, but the question is, is that police state toothless? Only this week NAB reported on African criminal Yak Dut, 22, who came to this country from the smouldering tyre-dumps of Kenya and proceeded to bite the hand that rescued him.
In 2017, Dut assaulted two female police officers who pursued him after spotting him driving through a Melbourne suburb with a flat tyre.
We initially reported that the officers were largely uninjured, but this was incorrect. One required surgery and eight weeks’ therapy. The violent assault involved one of the officers receiving a roundhouse kick to the head, shoulder and face. He then abused the officers as “s**t dogs” while yelling police were “racist c**ts.” After beating the women, Dut threatened to track down and shoot them with their own firearms, if need be, in front of their families.
However, Dut notoriously boasted he would get away with it because he is black, and would simply “play the race card”. He was right. After pleading guilty he was released from a 12 months prison sentence with time served and given a community corrections order. The judge spoke about Dut’s “rehabilitation”. Given that one the basic pub test, it’s obvious the judge is the one needing rehabilitation. But then, so does the entire country — it needs rehabilitating from decades of multiculturalism.
A pedantic reader might argue none of this leniency from the courts is commensurate with a police state. The police state, as we said above, appears to be toothless. But this police state is skewed to enabling the delinquency of non-Whites.
So-called “experts” on extremism would render that remark of itself as being an example of extreme speech.
The more they stir the idea of a far-right terror threat, the closer we come to having commentary such as ours prohibited.
This is exactly what England’s Tony Blair Thinktank suggests needs to happen. Tony Blair, of course, was responsible for completely changing the racial makeup of England through a program of mass immigration designed to “rub the right’s nose in diversity”. He is also a war criminal who along with George Bush and little Johnny Howard was responsible for tearing Iraq apart.
It’s little wonder an institute dedicated to Blair’s treasonous legacy would wish to exterminate any adversaries of a system that aims to replace the indigenous white populations of Europe with coloureds from developing nations.
These days, the greatest weapon in the war on the world’s White population is a document that has gained international legal authority. After World War 2, came the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which has as its Article 14 (1) “that everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.”
Of course, the chief group who worked hard to have their race synonymous with persecution were the Jews. Little wonder then that Jewish influence with its Holocaust religion has been super active in promoting the mass migrations that we’ve been seeing in the last 20 years, along with the conflicts that help generate them.
In 1951, under the leadership of liberal-conservative Robert Menzies, Australia signed on to the United Nations Refugee Convention. Australia had its own system in regards to those seeking entry on humanitarian grounds. But the UN article lay more-or-less inactive until suspicious amendments were made in 1966 (as the White Australia Policy ended) that conveniently foreshadowed the movement of displaced persons such as those fleeing the war in Vietnam.
In 1976, the conservative Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser green-lighted the boat people with South Vietnamese being the first non-Whites to significantly flood our country. Thereafter, or in tandem, multicultural Australia took off.
The next reffos were the Lebanese who in no time at all managed to help remove any claim we had to that embarrassing title ‘the lucky country’. If the Italian migrants (for whom the racial discrimination act came into being) had been too subtle in their criminalising our streets the Lebanese were loud and aggressive. Now, we have the African criminals marauding freely. They make the Arab groups seem downright polite.
Thanks to policies designed for complete aliens, White Australians live under a constant monitor for any signs of recalcitrance and at all times our behaviour is measured by its innate racism (a pejorative word with a set of attendant behavioural deviancies). This is despite the immigration rates of and the nature of those races flooding in (Asians, Arabs, Africans, and Indians) which are pushing White Australians into the status of just another demographic.
One who is not conditioned to think otherwise could accept the idea that a country’s parent culture being ushered into a minority status could ever be a just or righteous thing.
An idyllic has been lost in Australia because of idealists who relate not to their own kind but to complete strangers who hate us.
When the Vietnamese gangs hit our cities, something was lost. When immigration sped up and the character of our cities altered irrecoverably Australia had lost a significant piece of its soul.
Australians once marvelled at tales of New York City, and its violence. America was a madhouse and we breathed a sigh of relief that we were Australians. All we had to worry about was a redback on the dunny seat.
But we are now like New York was when it piqued our morbid fascination. We, too, live with the threat of ‘terror’, a threat that wouldn’t exist, like everything else, if it weren’t for multiculturalism.
This blatant drive to end White dominion over Europe, America, Australia and South Africa has resulted in us living under siege. But in our own cities, we live under the digital eye and Australians face Communist-style surveillance in the interests of cobbling together a Babylon which has its only purpose in the service of mammon.
About Author
