NSW Political Police Agency Confesses To Targeting Nationalists: Why? Whom Does It Serve? What To Do About It?

by Dr. Jim Saleam, 17th January 2009

(Note: this article may undergo minor editing after it is posted here on 17th January, 2009.  It was considered by the Australia First Party that a ‘draft’ appear as soon as possible.)

Unfortunately, I only recently read a significant article in Policing Issues And Practice Journal,a New South Wales police publication. The February 2007 article, by Senior Constable Andrew Minney, came into my possession only courtesy of a member of the public.

I say unfortunately because the article, “Nationalist Extremists And Racist Extremists: An Overview”, contained useful material which could have influenced the course of debate within the Australian nationalist community in 2007 (as below). Otherwise, its arguments remain of service to us in defining position and understanding the responses to our activities from the political police apparatus.

It is noted that Andrew MInney (hereafter: Minney) was recorded as a member of the Strategic Intelligence Unit of the Counter-Terrorist Co-Ordination Command. Just as Minney referred to viewing the websites of “Nationalist Extremist” and “Racist Extremist” groups (he listed a number of organizations groups and websites – Australia First, Patriotic Youth League, Blood And Honour, White Pride, League Of Rights, New Nation) in order to acquire crucial “intelligence”, so it cuts both ways. In writing as he has, this officer has offered “intelligence” to us.

It has long been the position of this author, that the political police in Australia have been inveterate enemies of the nationalists and other patriots. From frame-ups, to harassments, to substantive crimes (arson, rape, theft, break and enter, criminal damage), to running informers and provocateurs, they have been active. More than once their hand has been keenly felt in the history of nationalist and other patriotic organizations, sowing divisions, using ‘legal’ harassments of the target, creating ‘counter-gangs’ that mirror the target whilst harassing it and otherwise targeting people for privatised harassment and criminal attack. Minney’s article confirms – at least – “disruption” is organised against us (as below).

For my own part, I have personally fought against the political police, publishing their names and photos and those of their agents, details of their actions and exposure material and organizing particular activities against them. The nationalist organization ‘National Action’, which I co-directed in the 1980’s, acted to minimise the impact they might have within its fraternity and had some successes.

But they returned to carry on the vendetta. In the years that they had me imprisoned (1991-5) via perjury and conspiracy, I dragged Federal and State agencies back into courts of appeal and kept issues alive. Ultimately, material collected by myself and other nationalists was used by the New South Wales ‘Royal Commission Into The Police Service’ (I say ‘used’) to dismantle the out-of-control and financially corrupt Special Branch and intimidate into “rolling over” the corrupt head of that group, Superintendent Neville Ireland, but – naturally – the essential material we had provided was not publicised or used in the hearings lest it advantage the nationalist cause and undermine criminal convictions won against me and others.

In the period 1999 – 2002, I oversaw the release of innumerable files of the Special Branch organisation, a process that was stopped by a ‘decision’ of the New South Wales Administrative Decisions Tribunal, lest we learn too much of the activities of that agency from the past. The struggle has been therefore constant – and it (obviously) continues.

Today, we address how nationalists, patriots and so-called “racists” are analysed by the political police. I use the term ‘political police’ since not for one moment do I take seriously their pseudo-moral claptrap that they are there to fight terrorism or other violence and intimidation. The political police are the organised mechanism for the protection by ‘other means’ of the dominant economic-political class in our ‘democratic’ Australia. It is essential in the understanding of the discourse of the political police that one never accedes to its language. The language of political policing is itself a conditioning tool; if we strike back against political policing, we must employ our own counter-power language.

Yet, contemporary political-policing in Australia is decidedly influenced by the counter-terrorism drive of ‘Western’ intelligence services. It shows physically in the person of Nick Kaldas who directed the New South Wales Counter-Terrorist Command at the time Minney composed his piece. Kaldas was considered reliable enough (sic) to have been seconded to Iraq in 2004 and 2005, where he assisted in training the puppet police services of the Baghdad occupation-regime and was of such significance to have played a role in the show-trial of the Iraqi dictator, Saddam Hussein, a process that actually resulted in what many jurists call his judicial-murder. Today, Kaldas serves in Lebanon, investigating the assassination of a senior politician, such that Israel and American ‘intelligence’ may pin the killing upon Syria, a function that may prefigure war.

In other words, in the very person of Nick Kaldas there is a suggestion that under his leadership of the New South Wales political police, the logic of counter-terrorism has imposed itself upon political policing generally; further, it could be equally concluded that their fight in Iraq against the national resistance is seen by Kaldas’s controllers as the same thing as their struggle against patriotic dissident Australians. In one sense that is correct: each targets the New World Order system of economic and political and cultural globalisation, albeit on behalf of very different peoples and through rather different means. Whatever some Australians may think of this equation, the political police are in no doubt of its validity and proceed accordingly.

In the following commentary, I am not being exhaustive in my analysis.

The Purpose Of The Minney Article

This article was aimed squarely at politicising the New South Wales police. The admonition that –

“…. such groups present a threat to the community and therefore warrant continued scrutiny. Police are encouraged to provide any information relating to the operation or activities of Nationalist Extremist and Racist Extremist Groups by submitting intelligence reports or including the information, when appropriate into COPS events.

– rather demonstrates this point. The COPS is a ready-reference computer database for police.

Here we see that ordinary police are told that nationalist views are in some manner illegitimate and that it is appropriate, indeed preferred, that all data on our activities are turned in. Essentially, this implies the politicisation of the police to perform functions conducive to the defence of the multiculturalist system. In passing, I note that this was the goal set by the so-called Report Of The National Inquiry Into Racist Violence (1991). The goal has been a long-time-coming.

But even more disturbing is the opening assertion in the Minney article that patriotic people are movers in de facto terrorism:

“Given the current security environment and in the wake of contemporary terrorism across the world many people, including police officers, now associate ‘extremism’ solely with radical Islamists and associated religious ideologies. The reality is that there are many forms of extremism around the world. Extremism refers to the adherence of a radical belief or ideology in an immoderate, uncompromising and/or fanatical manner. Extremists are usually characterised by their adoption of beliefs or ideologies, whether political or religious, which are well outside accepted social norms.

This article is intended to provide an overview of several ‘Nationalist Extremist and Racist Extremist’ (NERE) groups which are currently active within NSW and the challenges they present to police.”

Here we see two things: the equating of the activities or potential activities of nationalists and “racists” with terrorism and the blurring of terrorism with a far lesser quantity – politically motivated violence. Similarly, an “extremist” is simply someone who does not accept the new artificially sponsored ‘norm’ of liberal globalism.

Of course, ordinary police are not scholars, nor do they necessarily draw the fine points. However, the notion that the average police officer is a simpleton – can be rejected. The average officer can see with his own eyes what the nationalists are doing and saying. Yet, he is invited to believe he is addressing a terrorist or extremist movement.

Given that police are being asked to spy upon a very special category of Australian, they might begin to question the acceptability of this ‘norm’ and the ideology and politics of those who demand they do this.

This would be the start of a dualism in the police: on the one hand, they deliberately mouth the slogans of the liberal-globalist regime, whilst repudiating in silent practise its demands. That is also potentially the start of independent judgement, a process of development in consciousness which may ultimately lead to the acceptance of the nationalist party as the alternate legitimacy. However, that notion carries us too far from the immediate topic. Nonetheless, because nationalist ideas may appeal to parts of the police in this era of enforced multiculturalism, suggests to the political police that they must also police the police and achieve their politicisation in a liberal globalist direction!

We play for high stakes.

Delegitimization Through False ‘Codes’: Neo-Nazism, Fascism, White Supremacy

In order that police reject the legitimacy of the nationalists, the Minney article is littered with the false descriptions of the nationalists and other patriotic people. In that regard, terms like “neo-nazi”, “fascist” and “white supremacist”, are put about. Of course, a few persons and some tiny groups may indeed be – precisely those things. A couple of small groups listed in the article were precisely that.The ‘cleverness’ of the Minney article is to confuse all the groups.

At no point – of course – does Minney mention that the political police have continually used some neo-nazis and have actually operated neo-nazi groups. That sort of tactic derives from the British terrorism and insurgency theorist, Brigadier General Kitson. Kitson defined the notion of the counter-gang, a situation where a body is ‘promoted’ to look a little bit like a genuine ‘insurgency’, but which spends most of its time destabilising a target set up for them by the security agencies. The application of that idea to the purely political scene may serve to explain the character of some of the “disruption measures” .targeting nationalists. In other words, the political police may sponsor “white supremacist” or “neo-nazi” groups to spread “hate” and to “associate themselves” with the activities of genuine nationalist or patriotic groups. This can be done through compliant media and particular journalists who are close to them..

A good example of the latter may be the 1997 “Ku Klux Klan” infiltration of One Nation. The operators claimed to have wide influence inside that party, much to its embarrassment in the media. Yet, the KKK group was really non-existent and run by two persons connected to the political police. The journalist who ‘broke’ the story could hardly have believed his own rubbish and has political links and was criticised just last year by even the paper-tiger Press Council – for bending the truth.

Australia First Party: Small Mercies

Minney says of Australia First Party:

“The Australia First Party is a minor political party with nationalist leanings. The party has made attempts to distance itself from descriptions by some observers that it is an extreme right wing neo-Nazi group.”

Ah, small mercies! Here we have the official concession that the paid media does not generally ‘accept’. Of course, Australia First seeks to develop an Australian ideology, politics and organizational method. We are nothing less than Australian nationalists.

Nonetheless, the media always reverts to its failed scripts when we enter into any area of controversy. Thanks to Minney we may henceforward quote his (unintentional) clearing of our reputation!

The Superior ‘Human’ Verses The Inferior ‘Australian’

Minney provides a broken psychological analysis for membership in his target groups:

“Weinberg (2005, p: 82-86) outlines a number oft theories that attempt to explain why people join racially motivated (i.e. NERE) groups.

These include:

  • a lack of sense of ‘self and a desire to belong to a group. The individual is therefore easily susceptible to a ‘group think’ mentality;
  • the individual is possessed by a strong belief in conspiracies and therefore possesses a sense of commitment to radical change;
  • the individual is excited by the prospect of carrying out ‘missions’. The wearing of uniforms and other regalia may also present some excitement; and
  • mental illness or mental disorder – including delusions of grandeur and perhaps self-loathing.”

This description by the American neo-fascism expert (sic) Weinberg, might equally apply to the paramilitarization of the police itself, a process that dumbs down human response to protest and which permits the legal use of state violence against the less-than-human ‘targets’. Reasonably, this description would apply only to some individuals within a paramilitarized police structure – just as it would only fit but a few individuals within the broad patriotic camp.

I predict that this analysis comes from the failed models of the American Jewish organization, the Anti Defamation League of B’nai B’rith which provides these sorts of assessments to the famed FBI.

As stated, if this type of analysis was applied to any of the groups listed in the Minney article, I would have severe doubts. The odd individual notwithstanding, the analysis does not fit. But as we have just seen, is it designed to fit? In reality, this sort of nonsense is a provocation, an attempt to desensitise the police generally towards the targets. Might it be more a matter of bastardisation for the inexperienced ordinary officer who knows little of politics, to turn him into a spy against his fellow Australians and a robotic tool for their political suppression?

The dehumanisation of the “racist” and the “nationalist” is already achieved in the Human Rights And Equal Opportunity Commission where the complainant is backed by the full force of authority and the target guilty til proven innocent, where to be accused of violating human rights is to be shown up as non human!

Do They Disrupt Nationalist Organizations?

As an old hand in combating the political police, I was alert to three singular references in Minney’s text.

“In Australia, the growth of NERE groups peaked in the late 1990s in response to the 1996 uniform national gun legislation and an upsurge of interest in the policies of the political party, One Nation. Since 1999 NERE groups have generally been in decline due to legal problems, a shift of supporters to more mainstream politics, conflicts within and between groups..”

“effective disruption by authorities.”

“However NERE groups have previously displayed a surprising ability to remain in existence and rebound, despite enduring lengthy periods of inactivity and intense scrutiny.”

I have seen similar references before, albeit partly word for word in two ASIO reports:

  1. Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. Report to Parliament 1989-90. Canberra: AGPS, 1990;
  2. Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. Report To Parliament 1990-91. Canberra: AGPS, 1991.

The disruption of nationalist and patriotic organizations has long been on the political police agenda. When even words are the same, we may surmise similar methods of analysis, operation and so forth.

It was not long after these reports were published , that David Sadleir, director of ASIO, pointed to ‘racists’ and nationalists as his primary internal concern. He spoke of multiracial immigration as a “grindstone for prejudice” and stated he would maintain a close watching brief on certain groups.

In the current case, what was most refreshing was the open admission by MInney that since 1999 “effective disruption by authorities” has occurred. This explicitly suggests the use of the political police against nationalist groups in New South Wales and elsewhere.

We may rightly ponder what the measures employed might have been?

It is a matter of historical fact that ASIO employed in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s, a ‘Special Projects Section’, one of whose operations was – ‘Operation Whip’. This ‘op’ targeted leftist radicals, both organizationally and personally.

The ASIO methods included: personal harassment at work ; harassment of family members to sow troubles ; sacking from jobs ; infiltration of groups ; use of shadowy ‘right-wing’ groups to do violence to offices and premises ; use of media to spread disinformation about a person or group ; tax office investigations.

Some nationalists have maintained that similar projects have long operated. I referred to certain methods (above). Of a more contemporary nature, it has been suggested to this writer that the attempt to divide and disrupt Australia First in 2006-7 was a product of this type of operation. Given the recent admission, who is to say this could not be untrue?

The clear admission of “disruption” says that patriotic people need to become more vigilant to disruption and provocation. It means that they have to become aware of the methods employed and be ready to support the expulsion from their organizations of persons reasonably attainted of disruptive tendencies.

Yet, the nature of this disruption is not always a matter involving the political police too directly, or necessarily involving them through a civilian recruited to the purpose. It has been the case that some of the best ‘disruption’ has come from privatised agencies!

We can refer to the misnamed Australians For Honest Government based in Western Australia. This body was widely credited with the campaign that operated the tool Terry Sharples such that Pauline Hanson was ultimately imprisoned. It also ran of a number of “white ants” inside One Nation – many of whom have progressively been identified as “back in the Liberal Party”, sometimes as officials. The ‘Honest’ group was founded by Peter Coleman, father-in-law to Peter Costello and a former New South Wales Opposition Leader noted for his connection to the Special Branch apparatus in the late 1970’s. Then there is the Zionist group, Anti Defamation Commission Inc., which has been connected to ‘anti-racist’ internet groups (like Fight Dem Back), cells that identify people, harass them and create misinformation – and which also boast of de facto police connections.

Political policing is rightly conceived as a web of surveillance and intervention aimed at the targets.

The Political Economy Of Political Policing: Defending The Program Of ‘Open Borders’ And Economic Globalization

Minney states brazenly:

“To be an Australian is not to claim membership to a homogeneous racial identity, but rather an allegiance to the Australian nation. There are many non-Anglo Australians who have longer and/or closer ties to Australia than many Anglo Australians. The Australian economy profits significantly from international visitors, in particular the tourism and education sectors. Non-Anglo tourists and residents alike are at risk from the ideologies that NERE groups promote. Perceptions and actual experiences of organised racism are often expressed by international students who then relay their experiences on returning home.”

Through these references, the political police not only redefine the very meaning of Australia and Australian and opine how the state’s economic interest can be damaged by domestic groups.

The politicisation of the police to serve the new liberal globalist agenda, has been going on for two decades. However, in the last seven or eight years, it has become more intense. This particularly followed in the wake of the faked up ‘war on terror’, which allowed the expansion of the network of internal espionage and surveillance upon urgent security considerations.

Steve James wrote a major piece in Police Practice and Research, Volume 6, Issue 2 May 2005 , pp 103 – 119. A synopsis of this still-unavailable paper said:

“The paper examines trends in the policing of right-wing violence in Australia. It describes and assesses the threat of violence from explicit right-wing organizations, and outlines developments in the ‘hate’ crime phenomenon. The paper identifies several of the communities in Australia most vulnerable to such crime, such as the Indigenous community and in recent years members of the Islamic community. The paper explains and critiques national and local legislative and law enforcement responses to crimes of hate and violence based on racist and other discriminatory sentiments. It concludes by advocating a commitment by police services to a human rights enforcement ethic which renders intolerable the victimization of vulnerable communities by crimes motivated through hate.”

Aside from the utter falsehoods that there are crimes of racist violence rampant, we see the ‘hate crime’ propaganda rationale for any offence where race may be a factor and the shrill call for the creation of a human rights KGB. We see also the false morality of defending “vulnerable” communities – when in reality it is protect the economic marketplace from disruption.

Some three years ago, nationalists identified another major player in the ‘training’ of political police. John Casey was a Senior Lecturer at the Graduate School of Police Management at Charles Sturt University campus in Sydney. Before joining the School, he worked as an education and social services manager in Australia, the USA and as a university lecturer in Spain. A large part of his professional work has been focused on issues related to the provision of government services for immigrants and refugees. However, there was a much darker aspect to Dr. Casey’s work. But let us qualify this comment. We see it that way, as dark and sinister: men like this consider their views ‘normal’, as ‘just the way it is’. Blind to what they do, they can commit gross ‘offences’ against their country.

In this extract from one article, Dr. Casey views the multiculturalist idea as ‘normal’:

“In contrast, in countries with more of a commitment to multicultural settlement and integration policies there is less resistance to diversity. Countries of relatively new colonial settlement such as Australia and Canada have, since the 1970s, based government policy on normalising a multicultural reality in both the construction of their national identities and for delivering public services, while European countries such as Britain, Holland and Sweden have also adopted official policies that endorse and celebrate diversity.”

So, it is all normal. Logically, any opposition to the ‘celebration’ of this diversity is not normal.

In his official capacity Dr Casey wrote a paper in 2000 called – “International Experiences in Policing Multicultural Societies”. This developed upon his earlier work. In June 1996, a conference of experts on policing practices in multi-cultural societies was organized by the Rotterdam police and RADAR, a non-government anti-racist organization. This conference resulted in the drafting of a statement of principles, The Rotterdam Charter: Policing for a Multi-ethnic Society which, under the auspices of the European Union, has been adopted by police services in a number of European countries. This article provided an overview of international experiences in implementing programs to strengthen police-ethnic community relations, similar to those contained in the Charter. It concentrates on English-speaking countries, with particular emphasis given to the U.K. Australia and Canada These countries have a higher percentage of immigrants in their society than most industrialized countries and a longer history of addressing issues regarding policing diverse (sic) societies.

After the Moslem and Arab violence in Sydney in December 2005 that followed the Cronulla Civil Uprising, we noted the very-political response of the police hierarchy. What they did just didn’t drop from the sky. They covered up, obfuscated and otherwise lied about, their knowledge of Moslem/Lebanese violence. They targeted Australian youth for arrest. They talked tough, denied Australians bail, stigmatized them in the press and so forth. Was this just an effect of ‘cuddling up to the government’ or does it run deeper? Or was it the training (sic)?

The political activities of Dr. Casey suggest how it all works.

Dr John Casey first came to the attention of Toowoomba patriots in September 2005. He was invited to speak at a public meeting held in Toowoomba organized by Sudanese refugee advocate, Mark Copland. In an unofficial visit Dr Casey presented to the people at the meeting a Film called “The Letter”. The movie is a semi documentary based on the invasion of the town of Lewiston in the United States by 1000 Somalis. In his speech on the background of the movie, Dr Casey compares the white nationalists of Toowoomba to White Supremacists as portrayed in this film. He stated that a similar approach of stigmatizing opposition to the program as hate and superiority ideology (as shown in the film) would be an effective way of silencing any anti multicultural feeling held by the people of the Darling Downs.

The quote below tells us he wishes to impose the ideology within the police services:

“Statements of principle such as the 1992 Governing Principles for Policing a Culturally Diverse Australia produced by the Australian National Police Ethnic Advisory Bureau and the 1996 Rotterdam Charter: Policing for a Multi-ethnic Society (International Foundation, 1999) currently being adopted by European police services are important milestones in strengthening relations with ethnic communities, but they must be followed up by a sustained commitment to addressing diversity at all levels of police organisations.”

In the struggle to impose the ideology on people, Dr. Casey desired a police force available to dictate to the people.

Dr John Casey has of course, a very special economic agenda too. The two articles listed below tell you what it is. He wants open borders and he wants labour to freely move across the borders. We may now – quite safely – dismiss all the humanitarian blather about refugees as propaganda for capitalism. This man wanted to see Sudanese labour in Toowoomba. He wanted police measures used to enforce the policy. This man will work with other liberal minded forces as a smokescreen and as a public pressure mechanism to get what he wants. This small example, personified in one man (like in the case of Nick. Kaldas), shows us clearly what the policy line of the Australian state actually is.

These suitably titled articles say it all:

“Casey, John (2005), Open Borders: Absurd Utopia or Inevitable Future Policy? Paper presented to Australian and New Zealand Society of Criminology Conference, February 8-11, Wellington. ; Casey, John (2004), Free Circulation of Labour? Presentation on the future of immigration policies to a course on Free Trade at Bates College, Lewiston Maine, USA. March 2004.

It gets dirtier. We see in his case the alliance of the policeman, the capitalist, the social engineer – with the militant pseudo-leftist. Dr John Casey works closely with Trotskyite communist Mark Goudkamp who belongs to the Refuge Action Coalition (RAC). He has co hosted many functions with Mark Goudkamp in the Sydney area and all over Australia. Below are the details of one. We quote at length:

“Against border protection: for the free movement of people While Liberal dissidents and the ALP have made criticisms of the Howard government’s detention regime, they preface their comments with support for strong border protection policies. This workshop will raise the ideas behind and the desirability of a world without borders. What would it take to achieve such a world?”

John Casey , Mark Goudkamp, Refugee Action Coalition.


The function of the political police in this system is defined as a repressive apparatus to create the borderless utopia of permanent economic progress. The political economy theorists at Sydney University about 25 years back said that Australia as “a valuable piece of real estate” governed by the “agents” of foreign capital, integrated into the global market place and “cowed by security services”, could “degenerate into a form of sub-fascism.” No morality there. Just dollars and cents.

It Is Time We Too – ‘Politicise’ The Police

What is suggested from the Minney article is that the realities of multiculturalism and multi-racialism do not sit well with crime-fighting police at street level. They must be encouraged through various means to conform. Further, the nationalist people are perceived as a major internal challenge to Australia’s globalising economic order and police are to be told that. A line is put out there about looking after people threatened by racists, but fundamentally, it’s all about protecting globalising capitalism. That part, ordinary police are not openly told.

However, police are human too. We must never forget that. Nationalists need to develop their organizational structures with minimum interference. A counter-program to the political police line and operations must be developed.

A counter-program may include:

# Nationalists and other patriotic people must fight to win rank and file police sympathy and support. All demonstrations and actions must be conducted properly and the sensibilities of police dealt with professionally. Printed and other material must be developed to appeal to police. We must propose not only legal and social reform, but redefine policing for the nationalist future.

  • A unit must be developed within the nationalist organization to acquire information on political police structures, activities, agents and programs.
  • Any nationalist or patriotic organization may exclude disruptive elements and expect such elements are not admitted into another patriotic group.
  • Nationalists must receive some instruction in political police methods etc.
  • Certain organizational practises should be developed to deny information to the political police – and to provide them with disinformation.

This list is hardly complete. We must remember we have as one of our tasks – to win serving police for our party and for our cause.


In the coming year, Australia First Party will become a Federal registered party and develop structure and a higher public profile. We are certain to do these things whilst under surveillance and could suffer from “disruption” of one form or another. Now that we have been openly and publicly told that we are targets of the political police, particular obligations are imposed upon our leadership.

A battle has been joined. Until some mythic moment when we have the power to dissolve the political police, open their files and overturn their legislative and other bases and place some of their staff before appropriate tribunals, we are compelled to struggle against their impact upon us. To deny this struggle, or to fail to carry it through, would be serious offences against the well-being of the party.

The key is develop this party ideologically, politically and organizationally, that it may overcome every obstacle, train a new type of nationalist activist, official and member and organize substantial public opinion behind such a party.