Playing The Provocateur Game: Examples Of Terrorism And Racial Hatred Provocations. How To Respond?

Dr. Jim Saleam


July 2003

The range of provocations engaged in by the Sydney neo-nazi clique has been, over the last decade and a half, quite extensive. In this article I intend to refer to two fairly recent examples of provocation, one 'minor' in scope although very suggestive of their method, and one of some considerable importance in the present period of the 'terrorist scare'. It is only by studying the neo-nazi counter-gang in motion that we discern what the political police are up to and how we can strike back. (Counter-gang: a term used to describe a group set up by political police to 'mirror' existing groups and to seem to compete with them while actually destroying their ability to reach the public with a positive message and further, by undermining their stability.)

Provocation One: A Nationalist Group Is Infiltrated.

Let us return to March 2002 and the re-establishment of the Australia First Party (AFP) in Sydney. A small gathering was held and a number of decisions taken. As may be reasonably anticipated, invitations were issued to a range of potentially-interested persons. Our attention turns to one particular individual, Mr. John M (we shall preserve his identity). Mr. M was in his late fifties, of Danish origin and a member of the One Nation Party. He had made himself known to AFP organisers some time before and had expressed an interest in the formation of a new branch of the AFP. As it was, he did not "join" at the meeting. He had a different agenda.

After the formal 'meeting', Mr. M engaged a couple of persons in an intense conversation. He could not have known that one of them was a nationalist (we'll call him A-1) of over twenty years experience, someone able to decipher the nonsense espoused by the infiltrator. Basically, Mr. M launched into a tirade, urging the formation of an underground cell which would kidnap family members of prominent "Jews" and "multiculturalists". He went on to say that terrorism was the only thing which could work to change the political order and it should be organised forthwith. He said the Australia First Party efforts were okay, but were too "soft". A-1 knew the 'you're too soft' game too well - and his suspicions were heightened. He duly reported to the AFP: "there's something very wrong with this one. Don't invite him back. If I didn't know better he was 'talent scouting' for idiots while trying to put others off."

Mr. M also befriended another person (A-2) from the meeting, contacting him in succeeding weeks to join in a cell with him to do attacks on migrants or politicians. When A-2 "went fishing on him" and cunningly said: "no I'll do my bit by myself", he was told: "no, no, you have to join in a cell with others." As A-2 said later: "yes, I know what sort of cell; a cell with a political police agent in it, one that leads straight to a prison cell".

In the weeks after the meeting, many of the AFP's meeting-details leaked back to its organisers courtesy of various 'sources', people who had been, in other ways, approached by individual neo-nazis whilst on their assorted errands. It became clear to the AFP that their meeting had been compromised.

Many months previous to this AFP function, Mr. M had told a nationalist (A-3) that he had met with David Palmer: "at least he was doing something". In another later conversation with the same person, Mr. M had untruthfully said that he had "taken on board" what A-3 had said about Palmer and thereafter stayed clear of him. In the month or so after the AFP meeting, Mr. M also appeared at the home of A-3, passing some comment about his readiness to do illegal building work on the premises for cash and asking questions about a very particular tax matter suggested to him by something he observed on the A-3's premises. Within two days of this visit, the content of the discussion at A-3's premises came straight back to the AFP from a fringe contact who had also been approached by the neo-nazis.

John M's cover was now - blown. Once confronted, he spluttered and denied it, lied a bit in hopeless confusion and told his One Nation friends that he'd been viciously lied about by the Australia First Party. Indeed! It seems he is still officially on the One Nation membership list. He reported A-3 to the Australian Tax Office over a matter, but fortunately for the nationalist, his records were - as ever - in order. John M's campaign was obviously 'personal' indeed.

What did the neo-nazis want? The 'controller' for John M in this little bit of skullduggery was undoubtedly David Palmer. He wanted to know who attended the AFP meeting, how many attended, and the nature of the discussion and the decisions. Much of this - he obtained. This information could thence be reported when, as Palmer has freely told others, he receives his $200 for each periodic report to the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. Further: Palmer was talent scouting for idiots who might wear the line that the group was 'too soft' and 'needed' to get in with really tough honchos and do some violence. This routine has been applied elsewhere and was undoubtedly the very thing that won over John M. When it works, usually on some frustrated or isolated individual, it means a new person can be compromised and used in controlled violence operations - even to harass the 'soft' group that couldn't see the light.

How many more are there like John M? And why does a seeming-nothing like Palmer want this information? Unless of course - Palmer is 'something' of real importance, not the mixed object of fun and fear as the media projects, but a useful agent in the dirty war?

Provocation Two: Neo-Nazis 'Threaten' Moslems

The Sydney media reported in May and June 2003, the seemingly clever provocation engaged in by the ''White Pride Coalition'. This group seems to function as an umbrella for assorted neo-nazi grouplets, including Palmer's immediate circle. As the Daily Telegraph reported ("Hate Campaign Group Exposed: White Pride Targets Moslems", May 30), the neo-nazis had issued leaflets in the name of the Islamic Protection Group threatening violence against Australians.Moslem community leaders were outraged and disturbed by the use of the name of a group that did not exist. 'Incredibly', the media focused on White Pride as the guilty party. We wonder why? On June 3, the Canterbury-Bankstown Express followed up the story, referring to these people as "cowards" and Moslems as the victims of racism. Racism?

This affair was a major piece of provocation. Was it just a good old prankish act, spiced up to cause a little bit of frustrated anger in the Moslem immigrant communities? Hardly. What is being rehearsed is part of a script. It goes something like this with two versions 'available'. In the first version, Moslems get a little annoyed at the neo-nazi haters, form a hit-squad and conspire to bomb or injure them; of course, the cell has been infiltrated or is under electronic surveillance; result - terror trial, banning of Moslem anti-Zionist groups, justification for ASIO powers. In the second version, the neo-nazis see the trouble they've caused and decide to escalate events with an attack upon a Moslem leader or mosque; of course, the hit squad has been infiltrated or is under electronic surveillance; result - terror trial, the banning of groups that are said to be 'connected' to the neo-nazis or 'like' them in some way, justification for ASIO powers.

This sort of provocation has all the earmarks of the still-unsolved Hilton Hotel Bombing of 1978 and the spin-off affair - the trial of the Ananda Marga Three for the 'attempted murder' of a neo-nazi Special Branch informant and provocateur.

Interestingly, the media and the police were straight on to a young man, Mr. Z. (We shall use a cover name here.) They suggested in various ways that he was the actual author of the provocation. Mr. Z has had, according to some legal documents employed by the group, an association of sorts with the Palmer counter-gang. Of course, setting up Mr. Z. would be something the counter-gang would do.

I am happy to say that this was one neo-nazi provocation that did not pass! Almost at once, this writer and others were straight on to the media, providing documents and telling truths. Interestingly, a police officer, empowered by his Commander to investigate the "incitement to racial hatred" aspect of the provocation, made contact, if only to have the author 'confirm' the line put to media: that the whole matter was a political-police provocation. This writer was pleased enough to say to the investigating officer that this Internet page tells the truth - that the neo-nazis are creatures of the political police. Howsoever individual policemen deal with that - is a personal problem. Similarly, Moslem groups were contacted and informed about the neo-nazis and were advised not to play their grubby game. We cannot say how our intervention was received by these groups.

The Terrorist Legislation And Neo-Nazi Provocation

The passage of the recent legislation which gives the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation veritable powers of arrest and detention is dangerous stuff, an attack upon basic civil liberties.

With neo-nazis joining various patriotic groups under fraudulent cover, or attending meetings in political disguise, it is very easy to organize provocation. Neo-nazis can talk about violence, killing, terrorism, to people who might shrug it off as idle imbecility. Then, the knock on the door. The detention for seven days such that the subject 'reveal' information about terrorism. The media can join in, stigmatising the arrested person.

And there's things even worse. What about the "cell" John M wanted A-2 to join? What if some naive patriot was conned into joining few others and a conspiracy was hatched? With the chief provocateur in the driver's seat, things could proceed very rapidly towards a grave offence. Not only would a number of foolish if sincere people be sent to prison, but the propaganda victory would be devastating. It would follow that media would ask: where did the "cell" recruit its men-of-violence? Why, it was from the ABC Patriotic Party or the This Or That Movement For A Decent Australia! It follows these groups are 'tainted' and should be banned! After the provocation directed at Moslems, we are entitled to ask whether a 'terror cell' already exists somewhere, ready to provide the political police with their show trial?

Provocation is a dangerous thing. The Palmer counter-gang must be repudiated by all nationalist and patriotic people. Persons appearing at nationalist or patriotic meetings, who talk of terror and violence, should be quietly reported to officials of the group; there is no advantage in having a John M. recruiting in the ranks, looking for some useful person who can be beguiled. No rock should be left unturned by all nationalist and patriotic people to assemble information about neo-nazi provocation, while every media false-story should be the subject of energetic reaction. In particular, speak to journalist who writes the story; at the end of the day, they're only 'human' too and possibly ready to delve deeper; once they do, they will discover the shadow-world. You might not convince them to side with you, but you might compel them to stay clear of neo-nazi lies in the future. Any gain, we make is positive.

Let 'operational failure' be the ultimate result for the ASIO terrorists!

 




Inside The Kangaroo Reich