Best-selling journalist Antony Loewenstein trav­els across Afghanistan, Pakistan, Haiti, Papua New Guinea, the United States, Britain, Greece, and Australia to witness the reality of disaster capitalism. He discovers how companies such as G4S, Serco, and Halliburton cash in on or­ganized misery in a hidden world of privatized detention centers, militarized private security, aid profiteering, and destructive mining.

Disaster has become big business. Talking to immigrants stuck in limbo in Britain or visiting immigration centers in America, Loewenstein maps the secret networks formed to help cor­porations bleed what profits they can from economic crisis. He debates with Western contractors in Afghanistan, meets the locals in post-earthquake Haiti, and in Greece finds a country at the mercy of vulture profiteers. In Papua New Guinea, he sees a local commu­nity forced to rebel against predatory resource companies and NGOs.

What emerges through Loewenstein’s re­porting is a dark history of multinational corpo­rations that, with the aid of media and political elites, have grown more powerful than national governments. In the twenty-first century, the vulnerable have become the world’s most valu­able commodity. Disaster Capitalism is published by Verso in 2015 and in paperback in January 2017.

Profits_of_doom_cover_350Vulture capitalism has seen the corporation become more powerful than the state, and yet its work is often done by stealth, supported by political and media elites. The result is privatised wars and outsourced detention centres, mining companies pillaging precious land in developing countries and struggling nations invaded by NGOs and the corporate dollar. Best-selling journalist Antony Loewenstein travels to Afghanistan, Pakistan, Haiti, Papua New Guinea and across Australia to witness the reality of this largely hidden world of privatised detention centres, outsourced aid, destructive resource wars and militarized private security. Who is involved and why? Can it be stopped? What are the alternatives in a globalised world? Profits of Doom, published in 2013 and released in an updated edition in 2014, challenges the fundamentals of our unsustainable way of life and the money-making imperatives driving it. It is released in an updated edition in 2014.
forgodssakecover Four Australian thinkers come together to ask and answer the big questions, such as: What is the nature of the universe? Doesn't religion cause most of the conflict in the world? And Where do we find hope?   We are introduced to different belief systems – Judaism, Christianity, Islam – and to the argument that atheism, like organised religion, has its own compelling logic. And we gain insight into the life events that led each author to their current position.   Jane Caro flirted briefly with spiritual belief, inspired by 19th century literary heroines such as Elizabeth Gaskell and the Bronte sisters. Antony Loewenstein is proudly culturally, yet unconventionally, Jewish. Simon Smart is firmly and resolutely a Christian, but one who has had some of his most profound spiritual moments while surfing. Rachel Woodlock grew up in the alternative embrace of Baha'i belief but became entranced by its older parent religion, Islam.   Provocative, informative and passionately argued, For God's Sakepublished in 2013, encourages us to accept religious differences, but to also challenge more vigorously the beliefs that create discord.  
After Zionism, published in 2012 and 2013 with co-editor Ahmed Moor, brings together some of the world s leading thinkers on the Middle East question to dissect the century-long conflict between Zionism and the Palestinians, and to explore possible forms of a one-state solution. Time has run out for the two-state solution because of the unending and permanent Jewish colonization of Palestinian land. Although deep mistrust exists on both sides of the conflict, growing numbers of Palestinians and Israelis, Jews and Arabs are working together to forge a different, unified future. Progressive and realist ideas are at last gaining a foothold in the discourse, while those influenced by the colonial era have been discredited or abandoned. Whatever the political solution may be, Palestinian and Israeli lives are intertwined, enmeshed, irrevocably. This daring and timely collection includes essays by Omar Barghouti, Jonathan Cook, Joseph Dana, Jeremiah Haber, Jeff Halper, Ghada Karmi, Antony Loewenstein, Saree Makdisi, John Mearsheimer, Ahmed Moor, Ilan Pappe, Sara Roy and Phil Weiss.
The 2008 financial crisis opened the door for a bold, progressive social movement. But despite widespread revulsion at economic inequity and political opportunism, after the crash very little has changed. Has the Left failed? What agenda should progressives pursue? And what alternatives do they dare to imagine? Left Turn, published by Melbourne University Press in 2012 and co-edited with Jeff Sparrow, is aimed at the many Australians disillusioned with the political process. It includes passionate and challenging contributions by a diverse range of writers, thinkers and politicians, from Larissa Berendht and Christos Tsiolkas to Guy Rundle and Lee Rhiannon. These essays offer perspectives largely excluded from the mainstream. They offer possibilities for resistance and for a renewed struggle for change.
The Blogging Revolution, released by Melbourne University Press in 2008, is a colourful and revelatory account of bloggers around the globe why live and write under repressive regimes - many of them risking their lives in doing so. Antony Loewenstein's travels take him to private parties in Iran and Egypt, internet cafes in Saudi Arabia and Damascus, to the homes of Cuban dissidents and into newspaper offices in Beijing, where he discovers the ways in which the internet is threatening the ruld of governments. Through first-hand investigations, he reveals the complicity of Western multinationals in assisting the restriction of information in these countries and how bloggers are leading the charge for change. The blogging revolution is a superb examination about the nature of repression in the twenty-first century and the power of brave individuals to overcome it. It was released in an updated edition in 2011, post the Arab revolutions, and an updated Indian print version in 2011.
The best-selling book on the Israel/Palestine conflict, My Israel Question - on Jewish identity, the Zionist lobby, reporting from Palestine and future Middle East directions - was released by Melbourne University Press in 2006. A new, updated edition was released in 2007 (and reprinted again in 2008). The book was short-listed for the 2007 NSW Premier's Literary Award. Another fully updated, third edition was published in 2009. It was released in all e-book formats in 2011. An updated and translated edition was published in Arabic in 2012.

Democracy rules

As Hamas is sworn into government, and Israel severs contact with the democratically elected entity, it seems the Jewish state has learnt nothing from its history.

The occupying power restricted access to Gaza lawmakers to travel to the West Bank and be sworn into power – Mother from Gaza has much more on the day’s events – and, as usual, Gideon Levy provides some much needed perspective:

The Hamas team had not laughed so much in a long time. The team, headed by the prime minister’s advisor Dov Weissglas and including the Israel Defense Forces chief of staff, the director of the Shin Bet and senior generals and officials, convened for a discussion with Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni on ways to respond to the Hamas election victory. Everyone agreed on the need to impose an economic siege on the Palestinian Authority, and Weissglas, as usual, provided the punch line: “It’s like an appointment with a dietician. The Palestinians will get a lot thinner, but won’t die,” the advisor joked, and the participants reportedly rolled with laughter. And, indeed, why not break into laughter and relax when hearing such a successful joke? If Weissglas tells the joke to his friend Condoleezza Rice, she would surely laugh too.

The proposal to put hungry people on a diet is accepted here without shock, without public criticism; even if only said in jest, it is incomparably worse than the Danish caricature. It reflects a widespread mood that will usher in cruel, practical measures. If until now one could argue that Israel primarily demonstrated insensitivity to the suffering of the other and closed its eyes (especially the stronger classes, busy with their lives of plenty) while a complete nation was groaning only a few kilometers away, now Israel is also making jokes at the expense of the other’s suffering.

The Middle East’s “only democracy” is openly campaigning to starve the Palestinian population as punishment for the Hamas win. Imagine the outcry if the Australian Federal government deliberately cut funding for the state of Victoria because the people there elected a government opposed to Canberra’s wishes.

Of course, when it comes to the Palestinians, their needs are clearly secondary.

And for others, such as the British Julie Burchill, it’s acceptable to write this:

Anyway, from now on I think I’ll get just a few less accusations of racism when I point out that Jews can be a bit, well, narrow-minded. Mind you, it’s a long hard struggle trying to make bleeding-heart liberals see sense. Especially when you live in a country where a sizable part of the print and broadcasting media are such guilt-ridden cretins when it comes to Islam that if they saw Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein sexually sharing their own grandmother, they’d swear the poor old lady asked for it.

Actually, she was referring to Muslims, but imagine the outcry if she’d written about “narrow-minded Jews?” They do exist.

  • captain

    Imagine the outcry if the Australian Federal government deliberately cut funding for the state of Victoria because the people there elected a government opposed to Canberra’s wishes.

    This is precisely the kind of silly analogy we have become used to. Hamas is not merely opposed to Israel's wishes, it calls for the destruction of Israel and murder of Jews.

    Why should Israel give any support to an entity that is totally opposed to dialogue and totally committed to an armed struggle?

    As a real democracy the Palestinians will have to learn that when they exercise their choice to elect murderers, there will be cause and effect. The mandate that they have given these bigotted murders their authority means that under the principles of universal sufferage the Palestinians deserve what is coming to them. Perhaps they will think twice when they return to the ballot box.

    If only the Palestinians had a real desire for resolution that did not involve the eradication of Israel, we would have experienced progress by now.

  • Progressive_Atheist

    It wouldn't have mattered if the Palestinians had elected Hamas or Fatah. The Israelis would still have found an excuse to continue their illegal and immoral apartheid against the Palestinians.

    Note that Hamas has not declared war on Israel, but Israel is assuming that Hamas will declare war, so it is planning to pre-emptively strangle the Palestinian people.

  • edward squire

    Despite the continued occupation, despite the continued settlement building, despite the continued murder of Palestinian civilians, and despite the building of a Wall that is not merely a grubby land-grab but is also a segregation of the Palestinians into three separate enclaves, wouldn't it be incredible if Hamas decided to issue a truce and, through all this, stuck to it for an entire year? Wouldn't that make the Israel government and the international community seriously think twice about the 'unworkability' of Hamas? Wouldn't it also be incredible and a thought-stopper if one of the most prominent leaders of Hamas came out in major Western newspaper, in its very first days of office, already hinting at compromising its past supposedly cast-iron principles with statements such as the following?

    Our message to the Israelis is this: we do not fight you because you belong to a certain faith or culture. Jews have lived in the Muslim world for 13 centuries in peace and harmony; they are in our religion "the people of the book" who have a covenant from God and His Messenger Muhammad (peace be upon him) to be respected and protected. Our conflict with you is not religious but political. We have no problem with Jews who have not attacked us – our problem is with those who came to our land, imposed themselves on us by force, destroyed our society and banished our people.

    We shall never recognise the right of any power to rob us of our land and deny us our national rights. We shall never recognise the legitimacy of a Zionist state created on our soil in order to atone for somebody else's sins or solve somebody else's problem. But if you are willing to accept the principle of a long-term truce, we are prepared to negotiate the terms. Hamas is extending a hand of peace to those who are truly interested in a peace based on justice.

    I think that would be incredible, and I think it would give grounds for a reasonable person to see a way forward. S what if they haven't eliminated the destruction of the Zionist state from their charter. That doesn't make them by definition impossible negotiators, just as Likud is not ruled out by definition just because in its constitution it effectively assumes the dispossession and removal of all Arabs from "Greater Israel".

    These things – the truce and the statements suggestive of compromise – have already occurred. For some reason however, they get ignored. Why? It is not because the dominant players involved are ignorant. It is because they want to ignore them. They are not the preferred enforcers of the status quo – the 35 years of nothingness when it comes to Israel commitment to end the occupation. It is all too new – all too upsetting. The fact that the Palestinians have elected an entity that will not sell them down the river is just plain too uncomfortable to everyone who benefits from the occupation: the Israelis, the surrounding Arab states, the US and the perpetual hang-wringing side-liner's club we call Europe.

  • Addamo


    You really need to do some fact checking and researhc before posting such baseless arguments.

    "Why should Israel give any support to an entity that is totally opposed to dialogue and totally committed to an armed struggle?"

    Simply put, if Israel wants to start witholding revenwu that is collected from taxing Paelstinians, then tey shoudl stop tasing the Palestinians alltogether. Israel elected a war criminal to represent them and that didn;t stop the US writing them balnk cehques.

    "As a real democracy the Palestinians will have to learn that when they exercise their choice to elect murderers, there will be cause and effect."

    Then you woudl have to agree that there is a price to be paid for illegal occupation and violent oppression of Palestinians by Israel.

    "The mandate that they have given these bigotted murders their authority means that under the principles of universal sufferage the Palestinians deserve what is coming to them. Perhaps they will think twice when they return to the ballot box."

    WShat difference does it make? Israel has imposed collective punishment on the Palestinians for decades. 10 thousand homes was one way they did so. This is yet another excuse to continue that practice.

    "If only the Palestinians had a real desire for resolution that did not involve the eradication of Israel, we would have experienced progress by now. "

    They did and always have. It is Israel that does not want a resolution, because a peaceful resolutino woudl mean having to give up the occupaied terrirories.

    For example. ikn 1981, Israel were under international pressure to reach a diplomatic settlement in the Israel-Palestine conflict. Instead, they decide to invade Lebanon in order to crush the P.L.O., because the P.L.O. was on record supporting a two-state settlement. Avner Yaniv, put it in his book, Dilemmas of Security, he said, “The main problem for Israel was,” and now I'm quoting him, "the P.L.O.'s peace offensive. They wanted a two-state settlement. Israel did not.” And so Israel decides to crush the P.L.O. in Lebanon. It successfully did so. The P.L.O. goes into exile.

    That is what Israel thinks of peaceful resolution with the Palesitnians.

  • Henry Kissinger, as U.S. Secretary of State, following the (democratic) election of Salvador Allende in 1970, declared, "Chile shouldn't be allowed to go Marxist just because its people are irresponsible…" The US then proceeded to undermine the Allende Government and the Chilean economy, culminating in a bloody fascist coup and the reign of the dictator Pinochet. Sadly, we don't seem to have learnt much since that time, Kissinger's quote could be easily adapted to the present situation in Palestine as the Israelis and the US begin to impose still further hardships upon an already desperate and impoverished Palestinian population. Despite the usual Zionist rhetoric about the Hamas charter for the destruction of Israel, blah, blah, when you look at it, Hamas are not actually asking for anything that Palestinians are not entitled to under international law (thanks for your excellent piece Edward) and have been observing a truce for over a year, despite numerous provocations from Israel.

    What are the consequences of illegally starving a Hamas dominated Palestinian government of funds? Probably bloodshed, mayhem and further instability. Meanwhile the ethnic cleansing of the West Bank will continue, probably with far less scrutiny than at the present time. Perhaps we ought to stop mouthing platitudes about democracy, freedom and terrorism and just grow up, accept the wishes of the Palestinian people, instead of treating them as naughty, irresponsible children. It would be a far better thing to try to bring Hamas into the fold (as with the IRA in Northern Ireland) instead of trying to drive them into the hands of whomever will provide them with the funds to keep their people alive. This looks to be little more than a transparent policy to empower and provoke a reaction from the radicals in the Hamas camp, whereupon the US and Israel will be able to say, well, we told you so. After all, eventually, we always talk to the terrorists.

  • rapscallion

    captain says:

    'As a real democracy the Palestinians will have to learn that when they exercise their choice to elect murderers, there will be cause and effect. The mandate that they have given these bigotted murders their authority means that under the principles of universal sufferage the Palestinians deserve what is coming to them. Perhaps they will think twice when they return to the ballot box.'

    What unmitigated twaddle, and a patronising lecture ('will have to learn') to boot. The blogosphere is swarming, sad to say, with this kind of thing: democracy is good as long as the choice of the Palestinians is something the right wing taliban agrees with; if not, threats are made. Next thing you know, bombers and missiles. I believe the percentage of eligible voters who actually cast for Hamas is pretty close to that of the Americans who voted for Bush. One simply cannot make a case against Hamas, no matter what their sins, that couldn't also be sustained against the Bush gang or mass murderer/war criminal Sharon. Except they didn't blow themselves up.

    Try this: substitute for the words Palestinians and murderers, 'Israelis' and 'Sharon'. Or 'Americans', and 'Bush and Cheney'. Makes perfect sense, captain.

  • orang

    The US and Israel know that most of their audience are stupid fuckheaded bigots who salivate when they tinkle their little bells.

    Who hears that Hamas speaks of cease fire and peace if Israel returns the land they have stolen? No the little bell tells them that they are terrorists and it is right to not only steal their land but their money now as well, so they can go on a diet (Haw Haw.) Rot in hell you slimy coc$uckers.

    The morons who believe this shit from the Princes of Torture and Terror are too fucking stupid to be let out alone.

    The US is demanding it's $50M in aid back because Hamas got the vote. Hamas is saying here take it back and stick it up your arse you slimy coc$ucker.

    This is so wonderful, we now have absolutely no reason to play nice to the Palis. No partner for peace, we make 'em madder by starving them, we lock them into their hell holes tighter than before, they get madder, try some goofy stunt..and POW we nail them. Wooooha, life is good.

  • edward squire

    Has the US ever tried blackmailing the Israeli electorate into voting for the people who are willing to negotiate a just end to the Occupation?

    Has the US ever with-held its generous funding of the Israel state because it didn't like the party that won power?

  • rhross

    It's getting harder NOT to believe that Israel is the 'dog' that wags the US. Whoever is running America is also running Israel,or vice versa, because that is the only explanation which makes sense of the 'twin-country' approach.

    America is taking, read, imposing, democracy on the world, but, it's a democracy that can only be accepted in the Middle East if Israel gives the green light to who is elected.

    And people throw up their hands in horror when 'conspiracy theories' are touted. No, I don't believe there is a Jewish plot to rule the world but I do believe there are other 'games' at work and an evil alliance has been forged between those who run America and those who run Israel.

    It is almost as if 'they', whoever the 'they' is, want war, war and more war. Somebody somewhere is making a huge profit out of this in terms of money and power.

  • Addamo

    "It is almost as if ‘they’, whoever the ‘they’ is, want war, war and more war. Somebody somewhere is making a huge profit out of this in terms of money and power."

    Almost as if? you seem to be alluding to the notino that there is some doubt to this suggestion. This notion is pretty well confirmed and well documented by arrogant ideologues who belive that the only thing to fear is not enough fear.

    I thik the documentary, Why We Fight, exposes this machine very well.

  • Leo Braun

    Well, when was predicted that GW Bush would drag the US into another war at the behest of Zionists, hardly anyone expected him to move so quickly. Of course, it has been pretty much a one-sided war: we drop bombs on the Iraqis and maintain a blockade of Iraq, and they don't strike back at us. But, hey, keep up this kind of one-sided war long enough, and it will become two-sided. Did you hear GW Bush and his head enforcer explained that the Iraq bombings were purely "defensive"?

    As Iraqi air-defense radar was becoming too "offensive" and needed to be slapped down. We bombed the Iraqis in order to "protect our pilots", who are in the habit of flying provocatively over Iraq every day, to show the Iraqis who's boss. Don't you love these Alice in Wonderland statements by politicians and bureaucrats. They talk about how they abhor aggression and respect the rights of small nations, and then when Zionists snap their fingers, they send-in the bombers to blast Serbia, Afghanistan and Iraq for behaving as sovereign nations are entitled to behave in conducting their own internal affairs.

    Although the Democrats and the Republicans might have slightly different taxing policies, when it comes to take orders from the Zionists … there is no difference between them. GW Bush was just as ready to bomb Baghdad and kill Iraqis as Bill Clinton was ready to bomb Belgrade and kill Serbs. Neither of these countries was our enemy. Neither had taken any hostile action against the US, or threatened US national interests. This latest attack on Iraq was solely to protect the interests of the Zionist Israeli junta, so that they can continue butchering Palestinians without the threat of opposition.

    Bush and his gang of enforcers in the State Department used to talk about the need to keep Saddam Hussein from developing WMD. What liars and hypocrites! If they were real concerned about preventing the proliferation of WMD, they should have been giving stern warnings to Ariel Sharon, not to Saddam Hussein. The UN weapons inspection teams should be probing the biological warfare laboratories in Israel, instead of worrying about Iraq.

    Liars and hypocrites: those are the terms that apply pretty well to every politician in the Western world these days. Where the Democrats are no better than the Republicans. Watch GW Bush's face carefully when he's making a public statement. You'll see that little secret liar's smirk, that he hasn't quite learned yet to suppress, like the really skilled liars have. I've said this before, but the problem we're dealing with here, is not just a few crooks who have sneaked into our political system; we're dealing with a whole ZOG system of government that is terminally corrupt, a system that has no room in it for anyone who isn't a Zionist crook.

    In this connection, let's us to look in detail at a prime example of just how rotten the system has become. In this instance I refer to the batch of pardons and commutations of the sentences of the Zioinist criminals … that Bill Clinton dispensed just minutes before the end of his term in office. All the attention was focused on just one of these criminals, Marc Rich, because he happens to be the biggest and most successful of them, but to understand the real significance of the Marc Rich pardon … we need to look at it in the context of all of the pardons and commutations Mr Clinton issued on Jan 20th, 2001.

    When one examines the whole list of the Zionist criminals who found favor with Mr Clinton, the most striking feature about the list is its Jewishness. It's not just that Jews are somewhat over represented on the list; they are vastly over represented. Jews constitute just one-half of one per cent of the US prison population, yet fully one quarter — 25% of the convicted criminals whose sentences were commuted are Jews. That's fifty times the rate we would expect. And the Zionist Jews who received a full pardon, including Marc Rich and his criminal colleague Pincus Green, were over represented on the pardon list by a factor of 12, compared to their percentage of the convict population in the US. I'll bet you that none of the mainstream media comments to be found on this so enormously disproportionate Jewishness of those receiving presidential clemency. Whilst the Congressional and other investigators probing the Marc Rich's pardon certainly will tiptoe around this so glaringly evident fact.

  • Leo Braun

    What does it mean? Well, we know that some of the Zionist Jew criminals whose prison terms were commuted received Mr Clinton's clemency because they live in the state of New York, where Hillary was campaigning for a Senate seat and needed Jewish support. Four of these Zionist criminals — Benjamin Berger, Jacob Elbaum, David Goldstein, and Kalmen Stern — were prominent leaders in one ultra-Orthodox Jewish community, the village of New Square, which delivered virtually every vote to Hillary on election day, while other ultra-Orthodox communities nearby voted overwhelmingly against Hillary. That in itself is as glaringly suggestive of corruption as the overwhelming Jewishness of the clemency lists.

    Both very charming Clintons of course, are extraordinarily brazen and pushy political climbers, but this willingness to trade pardons for votes in such an open way sets a new record for brazenness. The Clintons were really thumbing their noses at the American people — and also at the political system of which they are parts. This was not so much recklessness on their part, as it was recognition of the fact that the system has become so corrupt that almost no one really cares any longer, and so the Clintons could get away with almost anything.

    Nearly everything else the Clintons have done (however), including Bill's unzipping for Monica in the Oval Office and Hillary's running off with the White House silverware and furniture, pales in comparison with the pardon of Marc Rich. Like so many of the other Zionist Jew criminals pardoned by Bill Clinton … Rich didn't steal his money with a ski mask and a sawed-off shotgun; he did it with a telephone, a glib Jew tongue, and a knack for shuffling papers in a sleight of hand. Rich, as an international commodities trader, built his business through tapping into a worldwide network of the Jewish middlemen and by knowing whom to bribe and for how much. He saw a lucrative opportunity for himself in 1979 when Iranian militants seized the US Embassy in Tehran and took 62 Americans there hostage.

    The US retaliated by imposing an embargo on Iranian oil, and it thenceforth became illegal for any US citizen to buy or sell Iranian oil. That didn't bother so typically rootless Zionists and cosmopolitan Rich in the least, even though he held US citizenship at the time. He saw an opportunity to enrich himself and to benefit his fellow Zionist Jews in Israel at the same time. What happened to the American hostages was not his concern. He arranged for the smuggling of six million barrels of oil from Iran to Israel, and he took a hefty commission for himself. He also made money on arms deals he arranged between Iran and North Korea. Of course, he couldn't very well declare all of this illicit income, and so he neglected to pay some $48 million in taxes on it.

    Nevertheless, he and his Zionist business partner, Pincus Green, were caught and indicted on 65 counts of trading with the enemy, tax evasion, wire fraud, racketeering, and other felonies. Rich could have gotten him 300 years in prison, but instead he fled the country in 1983, and has been a fugitive from justice ever since in a safe haven of Switzer Land. This is the Zionist Jew fellow of whom Bill Clinton has said that he never should have been indicted on criminal charges …"that his offenses were only of a civil nature". Really! That's one of Mr Clinton's principal excuses for pardoning Marc Rich: "The man isn't really a criminal. He may have broken a few minor rules and perhaps civil penalties were appropriate, but certainly not criminal charges".

  • Leo Braun

    Being on Interpol's … Ten Most Wanted list, didn't keep Marc Rich from continuing to enrich himself via safe haven of Switzer Land, to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars a year. He has given an estimated $200 million to Israel during the time he has been on the run and he gave more than a million dollars to the Clintons and their Democratic Party associates. A latter through Marc Rich's ex-wife Denise, a hard-faced, sleazily over-decorated, bleached Jewess: just the sort to fit right in with the Clinton's social circle. She is said to have received nearly a billion dollars from Rich in a divorce settlement, and she still works for him, out of her 25,000 sq foot, three-floor apartment on New York's Fifth Avenue. When the House Government Reform Committee tried to question her about that, she pled her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

    Mind you that Marc Rich is guilty of far more than the felonies for which he was indicted in 1983. If someone had ever the power to bring Marc Rich to justice, the charge one would bring against him, the crime for which to condemn him while being suspended in an iron cage above the White House gate until his flesh had rotted from his bones, is genocide. Let's get into the details of that in a moment, but first I want to make it quite clear that Marc Rich is by no means the only dangerous Zionist felon, Mr Clinton pardoned. The impression one gets from reading news reports about the people pardoned is that they are just fast-buck Zionist con artists … lawyer types, who perhaps are a little tricky and don't follow all of the rules, but aren't really bad or dangerous people:

    For example, those four nice ultra-Orthodox Jewish boys from New Square, New York, who were clever enough to trick the US government into giving them more than 40 million dollars by filing all sorts of applications for financial aid for a yeshiva — a school (that didn't exist), and who had their sentences commuted by Mr Clinton in return for all the other ultra-Orthodox Jews in New Square voting for Hillary when she ran for the Senate last year.

    Well, listen! One of the other felons whose sentence was commuted by Mr Clinton was New York Jewish lawyer Harvey Weinig. When he was practicing law in New York Mr Weinig's most important clients were the Colombian bosses of the Cali cocaine cartel. In 1995, as part of a plea bargain, he admitted laundering $19 million in drug money for the cartel, and for that he was sentenced to 11 years in prison. Yet Mr Clinton turned him loose. Actually, Weinig was involved in much more than laundering drug money. His clients customarily play rough; they don't just smuggle drugs.

    They kidnap people, they torture people, and they murder people. Weinig was involved in a kidnapping. The ransom money actually was delivered to his New York law office. The prosecutors actually had wire-tap recordings of Weinig discussing the kidnapping with some of his associates, and they were prepared to prosecute him for kidnapping and extortion and a number of other very serious felonies, which he wiggled out of with a plea bargain. And then Mr Clinton has turned him loose. What was the quid pro quo there? Who knows, perhaps a lifetime supply of cocaine? Bill Clinton's drug of choice!

    One won't even get into the details of Clinton's release from prison of the Jewess Susan Rosenberg, who as a member of a violent communist gang was involved in an armored car robbery and the murder of two policemen and a guard. She was serving 58 years for that until big-hearted Bill let her go. Perhaps there's a Monica Lewinsky-type relationship there, although I don't really know.

  • Leo Braun

    The point I wanted to make is that the common element in the Clinton pardons and commutations is not that the crimes were all white-collar offenses that didn't really hurt anyone. The common element seems simply to be Zionist Jewishness. Well, there's more to it than that. The Jews he pardoned were not convicted of crimes of passion. They all are cold-blooded Zioinist predators, who were involved in sucking the life out of the Gentile society in which they live, some by violent means, most non-violently, but the non-violent ones, the ones who only stole by trickery and deception, are no less destructive than the violent ones.

    Marc Rich is the best example of that. His most serious and harmful crime is one for which he has not yet been indicted. That is the plundering of the Russian nation, the Russian people. As the Soviet Union entered the final phase of its self-destruction, Marc Rich saw a splendid opportunity for himself. Corrupt bureaucrats in the Soviet government (and nearly all of them were corrupt) had seen the end coming and had begun a massive process of looting, grabbing everything of value for themselves before the ship went down. They did this through a Zionist racket known as "privatization".

    Here's the way it worked: the bureaucrats in charge of various sectors of the Soviet economic infrastructure (factories, mines, timberlands, and so on) auctioned off these assets to private entrepreneurs, who in theory would operate them much more efficiently as purely capitalist enterprises. The government would benefit by converting inefficient, corrupt, money-losing properties into ready cash, and the whole economy would benefit from more efficient operation and foreign investment (that was the theory).

    Yet in practice, the corrupt Jew bureaucrats inside the Soviet government made "sweetheart" deals with the corrupt Jew entrepreneurs outside the government. Russia's assets were sold, not to the highest bidder or to the person best able to manage them, but to crooks who had made secret arrangements with the bureaucrats, and they were sold for a tiny fraction of their actual worth. Kickbacks went from the entrepreneurs to the bureaucrats, and the entrepreneurs in many cases quickly re-sold the assets to third parties for enormous profits.

    Thus, the Zionist "privatization" of the Soviet economy. Thus the birth of a new class of billionaires, the so-called "oligarchs", who often had connections with organized crime. In a greatly disproportionate number of cases the crooked bureaucrats and the crooked entrepreneurs were obviously Jewish, and nearly all of the "oligarchs" who finally ended up with the wealth of Russia in their hands are again Jews.

    The crooks, both inside and outside the government, who plundered Russia were eager to squirrel away their ill-gotten hundreds of billions of dollars outside Russia, so that a future Russian government would not be able to take their loot away from them. But all of these Jews grew up in the very restrictive, very parochial Soviet system. They had no experience at international wheeling and dealing, at money laundering, at hiding assets offshore in a way that they could not be traced. And that's where the Zionist Marc Rich came in.

    He helped his fellow Jew crooks in Russia with their looting in return for a percentage of what they stole, and he also did his own looting. From about 1990 to 1993 he was the biggest single trader in Russian aluminum and Russian oil, and he had his hands into many other Russian commodities as well, including gold, grain, nickel, and tin. Some of this is detailed in a book (available from National Vanguard Books, the sponsor of this piece). The book is Godfather of the Kremlin: Boris Berezovsky and the Looting of Russia, by Dr Paul Klebnikov, a Russian scholar and a senior editor at Forbes magazine.

    Marc Rich played a larger role than any other single person in getting the stolen wealth of Russia out of the country. More than any other single person he is responsible for making a once rich country into the economic basket case (that it is today). More than any other single person Marc Rich is responsible for the fact that millions of Russians are freezing and starving this winter, for the fact that the suicide rate and the alcoholism rate in Russia are at all-time highs, and for the fact that young Russian women, facing a future of bleak poverty at home, are letting themselves to be lured into slavery by Jewish slave dealers promising them jobs as secretaries or receptionists or housekeepers in Israel. This is the crime — the genocidal crime — for which Marc Rich should have his arms and legs broken and then be suspended in an iron cage over the White House gate (yet Bill Clinton gave him a pardon)!

    Government investigators are looking into Rich's pardon, primarily in an attempt to discover any payoff from Rich to Clinton. The primary reason they're looking is because the affair stinks so much that the politicians among the investigators are hoping to earn a little political capital by publicly demonstrating their disapproval of Mr Clinton's actions. They may find something and they may not, but I'm quite sure that they won't get to the real heart of the scandal, because that inevitably will take them into its Zionist aspects, and the very thought of that frightens them badly.

  • Leo Braun

    In conclusion: one should mention that some Jewish spokespersons in US were much more open in dealing with the Zionist aspects of this scandal than Gentile politicians. Some of the more far-sighted Jews were quite unhappy about the very heavy involvement of the prominent Jewish leaders in the lobbying effort, that secured Rich's pardon. Among the 100 Jewish big shots in the US and Israel who wrote letters to Clinton urging the pardon was very vocal Abe Foxman, head of the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, the most powerful Jewish pressure group in the United States.

    All of these letters have been made public as the investigation in the Congress proceeded, and some Jews were expressing fears that the public perception may be that there was an international Jewish conspiracy afoot to secure a pardon for Rich. That's exactly the fear expressed by Jewish writer Zev Chafetz in a Feb 15th, 2001, column in the New York Daily News. Well, don't count on the lemmings to have such acute powers of perception. What the lemmings will perceive (however), is that something is really rotten in Washington.

    Why did Bill and Hillary take such chances? Surely they could predict that they would be criticized for what they did, whether it was buying the votes of ultra-Orthodox Jews in New York, running off with the White House silverware, or pardoning such a notorious monster of iniquity as Marc Rich. It is clear that they did what they did because they figured they could get away with it, that they could weather any bad publicity, just as Bill did during the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

    They were thumbing their noses at the system. Even the lemmings can see that. What they did will not only serve further to undermine public respect for and confidence in ZOG establishmentand and US system of laws, but it also serves as an indicator of just how dangerously far respect and confidence already have been eroded inside the US system itself. When the highest regime officials, including the President himself, publicly display such contempt for the US system, contempt is certain to increase greatly among the public.

    As ever growing conscientious citizens notion urges the need of ZOG replacement, the sooner the better. As the rule of law, which the Clintons have done so much to undermine, is what stands between any civilized society and the jungle. When there is no more rule of law, life becomes unbelievably brutal