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.

One rule for all?

The imprisoning in Austria of Holocaust-denier David Irving – while his Australian equivalent is just as delusional – poses some fundamental questions about free speech. Perhaps surprisingly, the Australian media has offered any number of opinions today about the verdict (here, here and here.)

I have always felt distinctly uncomfortable about Irving’s association with neo-Nazis, white supremists and Holocaust denial. As a Jew – and anti-Zionist – I believe Irving’s “cause” has been frequently misunderstood by the mainstream Jewish community here. Banning him from entry into Australia seems counter-productive and hypocritical. It is perfectly acceptable to discuss the Jewish Holocaust, suggest that perhaps closer to five million rather than six million Jews were murdered (and not forgetting the untold homosexuals, gypsies and mentally disabled) and even debate what Hitler himself knew about the slaughter, but censoring Irving’s views seems troublesome. What views, therefore, are unacceptable in Western societies?

Conservative US commentator Andrew Sullivan nails it today:

I cannot express enough my contempt for the sniveling neo-Nazi, David Irving. That he has such an obviously first-rate mind makes his bigotry all the more repulsive. But imprisoning someone for their beliefs, however vile, is a violation of basic Western freedoms. We cannot lecture the Muslim world on freedom of speech, while criminalizing it in the West. I know there’s a historical reason for the Austrian law. That doesn’t make it any less objectionable in principle. And what has just happened will only deepen the sense that the West has double-standards among many Muslims.

Does anybody truly believe that this sentence will stop other Holocaust deniers spreading their hateful message?

75 comments ↪
  • Addamo

    I could not agree more Steve,

    So often peopel who blindly and fanatically rush to Israel's defence, will dismiss opposing arguments while maintaining that their own hyperbole and platitudes are sefl evident.

    Very hard to reason with such absence of reason.

  • Chris

    Sorry Ross, but you do not know what robbing a people of their wealth is, as least not as it applied in nazi germany. All of the rest of your statements support mine, and I thank you for that.

  • rhross

    Good post Stev.

    My impression of what Israelis wanted when I was there a couple of years ago was that they wanted Palestinians to disappear. Sure they want peace but on their terms. The Majority of Israelis are ignorant, for a variety of reasons, for what the State is doing in their name. I suspect some my guess but do not want to know.

    There are a minority of Israelis of conscience who want peace but want a just peace.

    I have also seen surveys which show that most Palestinians want peace and are prepared to recognise Israel's existence.

    The survey that Chris cites, and it would be interesting to find out who carried it out, shows about half of Palestinians support suicide bombing attacks against Israel.

    Hardly suprising. These people live in misery, without hope, watching their relatives and friends die, watching their land stolen, watching their homes, farms and lives destroyed and watching this truly evil construction of the apartheid wall ….. how many people could honestly say if they were in the same position, that they would categorically not support attacks against the occupiers…. no matter how violent those attacks might be.

    What Israeli defenders choose to ignore is that the occupation and colonisation and oppression has created an increasingly dysfunctional society.

    They also overlook the fact that people who have picked up the pieces of their loved ones, or laid out the faceless body of their child, or dragged the shreds of their lives from demolished homes are hardly going to be 'sorry' if they see similar suffering inflicted on those who have murdered and maimed them.

    No, I don't condone it but I do understand it.

    Palestinians use violence to win their freedom; Israelis use the same sort of violence to deprive them of it.

  • Stev

    Thanks guys.

    I must have missed Chris's citing of that survey, but it would seem to me that a figure of around 50% of Palestinians supporting suicide bombers against Israel would fly in the face of a claim that the majority desire a holocaust against Israel. As you say, it's necessary to consider the conditions that many of these people live in as a result of the oppression of Israel when considering this opinion. Even if we don't consider that, though, you would expect a survey of these people (the vast majority of whom allegedly desire a holocaust against Jewish people) to show a vast majority supporting suicide bombers against Israel.

  • rhross

    Just another thought, this survey that Chris cites could only have been done with the permission of the Israeli Government because the Occupied Territories are a series of concentration camps.

    No-one but no-one gets to travel in the Territories without permission from the Military. That means no survey could have been done by a Palestinian group since they are not allowed to travel; no survey could have been done by an international group since they are not allowed to travel; no survey could have been done by an Israeli human rights or peace group because they are not allowed anywhere NEAR the occupied territories, so any survey, by logical conclusion can only have been done under the auspices of the IDF …. by the occupiers.

    Hmmm, not much credibility there.

  • Addamo

    Yes very good point RhRoss.

    I hadn't thought of that. Only today it was reported that Israel had demolished a public park built in the West Bank using US aid, but demolished nonethelss (along with 2 houses) becasue these were built without the permission of the Israeli authorities.

    It would appear that this desctructive and seemingly unecessary act was done to make an example to the Palestinians who is in charge and what happens when you try and excercise your rights iin the occupied territories as an indivdual.

    I suppose Chris will argue that this was all done in the name of security.

  • orang

    rhross Feb 24th, 2006 at 11:20 am

    "Just another thought, this survey that Chris cites could only have been done with the permission of the Israeli Government because the Occupied Territories are a series of concentration camps.
    …….
    Hmmm, not much credibility there."

    This reminds me of the UN's investigation to the claims by the Palestinians of a massacre in Jenin. ..

    Hello? Hello, is that Israel?
    Yeah. Who is this?
    Kofe, Kofe Annan. I'm sendin my team over to investigate the reports of a massacre in the West Bank, in Jenin.
    I don't know what you're talking about.
    Yes, you know, massacre in Jenin.
    Who is this again?
    Kofe Anan, I'm in charge of the UN, and I am sendin my team over to investigate the massacre.
    I don't care who you are, but if you send anyone we're going to kick their arse, in fact if you don't watch your mouth we'll kick YOUR arse right out of that chair, got it?.
    Ok, Ok. So what happened then?
    Got a pencil?

  • Chris

    I would imagine 100% of Israelis wish to live in peace

    Does this not strike you as at all racist,

    How is it racist? 20 percent of Israelis are Arab muslims. 1 percent are Black Jews. How is the statement racist?

    50% of palestinians support suicide bombers? It appears to be greater than that:
    http://www.pcpsr.org/survey/polls/2003/p9epressre
    75% support the suicide attack at Maxim Restaurant in Haifa leading to the death of 20 Israelis.
    http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0619-08.h
    Polls regularly show strong support for the suicide bombings, though it has come down a bit in recent months, following the strong Israeli military response.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/middle_east/2063363.s
    Recent polls show approval of suicide bombings fell from about 80% of the population earlier this year to around 60% after the recent Israeli incursions.

    If that is your criteria for justifying a statement that the majority of palestinians support a genocide, then you have your proof.

  • Stev

    Oh dear me Chris, you've really painted yourself into a corner now. Let me explain how:

    Firstly, 'Israeli' – is a race, not a religion, nor an ethnicity. Any comment about 'Israelis' is a comment based on race. 20% of Israelis are Arab Muslims, 1% are Black Jews. 100% are Israeli. When you make a statement about something that all Israelis want, you imply that all people of other races do not want the same thing. Therefore it is a racist statement.

    And if, as you say, such a high percentage of Israelis are Arab Muslims, then how does support for suicide bombings against Israel constitute a desire for a genocide against the Jewish people.

    On a practical side, suicide bombings can hardly be equated to a systematic elimination of the Jewish people. While I don't agree with suicide bombings, they seem to be as much about resistance to oppression and occupation as they are about wiping out the Jewish seed.

    But we don't even really need the practical side, because according to your logic, suicide bombings against Israeli and Israelis are also an attack on Arab Muslims, so they are by no means anything close to a genocide.

  • Stev

    A few more points on the, as previously noted, unnecessary practical side.

    Probably not the wisest idea to exclude facts if you're going to link to sources. For example, some more of the results from your first link:

    …almost two thirds support a return to the Hunda, 85% support mutual cessation of violence, and, for the first time since the establishment of the PA, 59% support taking measures to prevent attacks on Israelis after reaching an agreement on mutual cessation of violence.

    64% still support a two-state solution

    Now how could two states exist if all Jews were eliminated?

  • Chris

    20 percent is not a high percentage. Normally it is the percentage in most western countries that is xenophobic. Why you would characterize 20% as high anything is confusing unless you couldn't make your point without erronious posting. And you couldn't.

    While it is hard to believe that suicide bombing is an effective method for the elimination of the Jewish people, that does not mean it is impossible or even improbable.

    Israeli is not a race designation. Making up 'facts' to prove your point is never effective.

    As for the contradictory statements made by some Palestinians, that is their concern.

  • Stev

    race
    n.
    2. A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution

    Explain to me again how Israeli is not a race designation? If I said 'All French people are rude', or 'All Canadians are slow', or 'All Americans are ignorant', all of these statements would be considered racist. If French, Canadian and American can be considered races, why not Israeli?

    I thought you were claiming 20% was a high enough percentage of the population to determine Israelis as not being specifically Jewish, because you clearly believe 'Jew', 'Muslim', 'Arab' and 'Black' to be races, but not 'Israeli'. That was why I referred to it as a 'high' percentage.

    Not quite sure what you're saying about suicide bombing as an effective or ineffective means of genocide. A method itself can be neither impossible nor improbable. Only a claim can be these things. What claim are you implying is neither impossible nor improbable? The only claim in question seems to be the effectiveness of such a method. I'm not claiming it's effective, in fact the opposite. You're saying you find it hard to believe such a method is effective, so it doesn't seem you're making the claim. If this is the claim you consider neither impossible nor improbable, who is making the claim? If it is not, what claim are you referring to?

    Contradicting statements made by some Palestinians? What you mean of course is contradictions in the poll that you cited. You minimise these perceived contradictions so that you can portray the percentages which the poll shows as being in favour of peace as being the views of a 'some' Palestinians, while the percentages which the poll shows as being in favour or one particular suicide bombing reflect the greater population.

    Would you like to talk about contradictions and erroneousness? Your initial claim was that the poll showing 75% percent of Palestinians as supporting one particular suicide bombing was proof that a majority of Palestinians desire a holocaust against the Jewish people. If the same poll shows an even higher percentage supporting mutual cessation of violence, how does that not contradict your claims and make them erroneous?

  • orang

    Stev,
    fuck him, he's a moron.

    By the way, based on your;

    " race
    n.
    2. A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution"

    Based on this definition it could be argued that Paletinians have more in common with Israelis than the recent imports to Israel from Russia, Europe, N. America etc.

  • Chris

    Your definition of race does not coincide with my usage of the term. My claim is that over 50% of palestinians support suicide bombings. That was proven by showing the results of several polls, one showing an 80% support for a particularly heinous event.

    What is orang trying to provoke? Dialogue or warfare?

  • Stev

    My definition of race? It's from the dictionary my friend, it's neither mine, nor yours, its the generally accepted definition. If you'd like to use a different definition, perhaps you're better off using another word. But then again, you didn't use the word 'race', I did, in calling your statement 'racist'. You simply protested my use of this word, which you're welcome to do, but clearly the accepted definition supports my usage, so your protest is moot.

    And Chris, you seem to have forgotten your own words. Your claim was this:

    the majority of the Palestinian people desire to see a second holocaust

    Which has clearly been proven wrong by the surveys which you yourself posted. I think you're on your way to conceding this by the fact that you haven't really addressed this original claim since you mentioned it. But you don't strike me as the kind that gives concessions, so I guess your silence on the matter is the best I can hope for.

    As for your claim of the majority of Palestinians supporting suicide bombings, there are a few logistical issues with your 'proof'. While it is perhaps not unreasonable to extend a poll showing support for one particular suicide bombing as meaning the same support is shown for all suicide bombings, it certainly does not constitute proof. Any extensions that need to be made to results in this way constitute interpretation. I'm not saying your interpretation is wrong, just that it is an interpretation and therefore is not proof.

    And why do you keep ignoring the fact that a considerably higher percentage of those surveyed support mutual cessation of violence? Does it not fit with your view of Palestinians as blood-thirsty crusaders determined to wipe out the Jewish population? Obviously there is some conflict within this survey, but it is childish to claim that the section of the poll which refers to the Haifa attack is 100% accurate while the section which refers to a mutual cessation of violence is either wrong or misled.

    If you're going to hold part of the poll as true, you must hold it all as true. If you want to parade the numbers for support of the Haifa attack, you must address the numbers which support a mutual cessation of violence. Otherwise you're just taking a leisurely cruise down that river in Egypt.

  • Chris

    Webster's gives this definition: a division of mankind possessing traits that are transmissible by descent and sufficient to characterize it as a distinct human type

    Using that definition "Israeli" is not a race. And that is the definition I used. Therefore, the use of the term 'racist' is not called for in this situation. Likewise racism does not follow your definition of race, rather that it is :

    A belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

    And the definition of racist cleary does not follow your definition of race, rather:

    a person who believes that one race should control all others

    I am not ignoring the contradictions in Palestinian opinion, just letting you know that their apparent support for genocide is not a minority view.

  • Stev

    Okay, I'll go through this slowly and point by point, because you seem to be having some real problems following.

    -Simply because another definition for a word exists does not render all other definitions null and void. Yes, the definition you listed is one definition for race. As is mine. Both are correct. Therefore 'Israeli' is a race, just as 'American', 'Canadian' and 'French' are. 'Jewish' is also a race, as are 'Black', 'Arab' and 'Anglo-Saxon'.

    -I was the one who used the word 'race' in the context of 'racist', not you. So it doesn't matter what definition you used. You cannot pick and choose definitions for words that other people use – it is their intended definition that counts. Sure, sometimes intentions are unclear when words have several meaning – I have made my usage quite clear.

    -Again, your definition for 'racism', like your definition for 'race', ignores all other definitions. For example, dictionary.reference.com gives us this in addition to your definition:

    Discrimination or prejudice based on race

    Making a broad generalisation about a race, whether it is positive or negative, meets this criteria. According to this definition which is an accepted definition of 'racism', even if other definitions exist, your statement is in fact racist.

    -I have no idea what you're trying to say with 'a person who believes that one race should control others'. Are you claiming this is what I believe racism is? If so, you're wrong. Are you claiming this is what racism is? If so, again you're wrong. Such a belief is a racist belief, but it is not the definition of racist. Racism is about discrimination, prejudice & perceived superiority/inferiority and has nothing to do with control.

    -You can 'just let me know' anything you like, but without proof they will just be 'outlandish claims'. The poll you posted showed that the majority of Palestinians support a mutual cessation of violence. This proves that alleged support for genocide is a minority view.

    -I also pointed out that if Israel is comprised of other heritages and religions as you said, then an attack on Israel cannot constitute genocide, therefore your claim that a majority support for any suicide attack on Israel, let alone all suicide attacks, does not constitute proof of this desired genocide.

    If you do feel you can prove this claim, Chris, feel free to continue trying to do so. But nothing you have provided so far constitutes proof.

  • Chris

    Rereading, I hope you have discovered that your definition of race has nothing to do with the definition of racism or racist.

    The majority of Palestinian actions and opinons, suicide bombing being one of many, is proof of their desire to commit genocide. It is a majority view.

  • Stev

    Again with 'my' definition. Do you think I made this definition up? It's not 'my' definition, it's 'the' definition. And how could 'the' definition of race possibly have nothing to do with the definition of racism or racist? The definition of race is central to the definition of racism or racist.

    Your manner reminds me very much of this Bush quote:

    See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda.

    Saying something again and again does not make it true. Proof makes it true. If you're so certain it's true, why do you refuse to provide proof? The way someone acts towards Israel does not prove their feelings towards Jews. Such simplistic thinking is quite reminiscent of the classic 'all anti-Israel sentiment is anti-Semitic' line of thought. Do you believe this to be true too?

    There are plenty of suicide bombers attacking the American coalition. Does this mean the majority of Iraqis have a desire to commit genocide against Americans?

  • Chris

    It is the definition you used to define race in the regard to racism and racist behavior. Clearly, the definition you use is incorrect in those instances.

    Like Bush, a fact has to be repeated to you several times before you come to the realization that it is, indeed, a fact. repeating the truth ovr and over again does not make it a lie.

    "Such simplistic thinking is quite reminiscent of the classic ‘all anti-Israel sentiment is anti-Semitic’ line of thought. Do you believe this to be true too?" I believe it is true that those who make such statements are normally trying to pass off their antisemitism as legitimate criticism of Israel.

  • Leo Braun

    Progressive_Atheist: "Who has examined the role that the Zionists played in the Holcaust"? Very imperative and fundamental question which takes precedence over questioning the validity of intentional extermination. So now that we've our priorities set straight, lets us to focus on the common denominator of the Jew dilemma. Speaking of which compels on me to question what kind of Jews we were talking about? Since our common Jew lesser brethren are dealt-with not-unlike as the untermensch Goyim and Shiksas by the supremacist Jew aristocracy.

    Surreptitious relatives of whom, so infamous Elders of Zion used their cunning movers-n-shakers over the years in attempt to score so vital sponsors from: Ottoman Empire, Imperial Germany, British Empire, France and Tsarist Russia in lieu of the Zionism — sought after a foothold in Palestine. As initial arm twisting tactics were instigated against the recalcitrant Sultan of Turkey, to grant the vagabond Zionists an autonomous statelet in return for devious charlatans misinformation spin, to discred skilfully any publicity on the Armenian's genocide.

    Now surely to most of the moral people, it would appear anomalous that such a deliberate mass scale extermination by Turks to be defended by Vladimir Jabotinsky (along with other Zionist leaders). Not to the unyielding WZO, which has been thriving over dead bodies. At the time used to be also adamant to take a care of Ottoman Empire's escalating debts (due to high interest charged by the money lenders). Yet all of that ended-up anyway in a fiasco as Abdul Hamid a Jew himself, knew perfectly well that Zionist sought autonomous statelet in Palestine was merely an overture towards the actual independence.

    In the meantime faded also Zionist prompted trickle migration (by hook or by crook) as a first wave of the Jew settlers to Palestine around 1927, found an arid and stony soil to be too hard to tackle, within their futile exertion in performed agriculture. An occupation, Jews hardly touched for donkey years. What halted thus volunteer Jews influx into the land of the "milk and honey". Especially after an overwhelming declaration by the would be farmers, asserting that they felt assimilated in Europe. Hence, they didn't really wanted to swap their cultural way of life for the barren desert toil and utopian dreams.

    Knowing that Germany's obstinate Jews would never voluntarily leave their homeland, Zionist operatives looked elsewhere as they turned to the Tsarist court to seek the support, facilitating Jew lesser brethren emigration. Apparently Russia tolerated at first Zionism, as long as rascal Jews emigration was underway. Moscow detective bureau chief was known to develop his own strategy via secretly placed division between the Tsarist and Zionist opponents. So what an irony was for those Jew workers, subjugated by twin prongs of oppression, to produce Russia's first socialist proletariat organisation of Bund — General Jew Workers League.

    Just to be clandestinely tackled by the Zionist mobilised an alternative Workers of Zion (Poalei Zion) sabotage groups. Created deliberately by the devious Zionists to smash Jew revolutionaries movement. Then as some of the sane elements within the Zionist ranks responded to the repressive regime tactics (which fuelled mass discontent), by concerning themselves with Jew workers rights in Russia … as a penalty their Zionist Bank (Jewish Colonial Trust) was banned. To function solely since for the Jew tax absorption only and emigration funding. Yet as the situation deteriorated even worse, moreover Jew workers joined revolutionary parties.

    Insofar Russia's sympathy for the Zionist operatives activity remained intact, as long as it produced rascal Jews emigration. Yet talks about the Palestine immigration receded due to local cultural sense of belonging, evolving in turn into Jew nationalism in Russia. Most detrimental to the imperialist Russia's charter of a support for the Zionist autonomous statelet in Palestine. What was conditional to Jew revolutionaries ceased struggle against the Tsarist regime. However working class Jew proletariat not to call-off their struggle for the elementary human rights (in return for a vague promise of the Zionist autonomous statelet in a distant Palestine).

    So imperialist Russia's hierarchy had a few choice words for Theodor Herzl, the founder of WZO. Who in some stage in l903, was so desperate as to contemplate a surreal proposition from Britain: as a substitute for Palestine to accept an alternative Zionist colony in Kenyan Highlands. Yet hard core Russian Zionists rejected such a bizarre to them notion, while threatening to ditch WZO, if Uganda was ever considered. Contrary to, Herzl with a vision of himself as a Jew Cecil Rhodes, hardly mattered to him where a future Jew colony to be situated. But to most Russian Zionists it meant an extension of biblical heritage. Enraged Russian Zionists tried to assassinate Herzl's lieutenant Max Nordau, and only Herzl's "premature death" prevented WZO collapse.

  • Leo Braun

    Mind you that in spite of direct contacts between the Zionist and Tsarist Jew hierarchies, the imperial Russia had not a slightest influence with Turks ruling class Jewry, who saw Russia as their enemy. Whilst originally there was a glimpse of hope to convince the recalcitrant Sultan of Turkey in granting an autonomous statelet in Palestine to Zionists in return for the bloody deal. But soon it became quite apparent that all the hopes were unrealistic as Abdul Hamid knew well enough as a Jew, that a foothold autonomy in Zionist hands would lead eventually to independence, yet he was adamant to hold onto his whole empire.

    Thus with WZO without any real army, their organisation was gifted nonetheless with Chaim Weizmann's spun intrigues in London, just as Vladimir Jabotinsky scored Tsarist accord in lieu of a volunteer Russian Jews Legion, to help Great Britain in taking Palestine by force. As thousands of young Russian Jew dissidents (still Russian citizens) were threatened with deportation by Jew Home Secretary Herbert Samuel, if they didn't volunteer to British Army. Yet in spite of all the intimidation by Brits, Russian Jew dissidents wouldn't fight for the Tsar nor for his sly British ally.

    So much for volunteer Jews legion perceived idea, what turned into embarrassment, if not for the irony strike in making such a scheme into reality, courtesy of the asinine Turkish help (aka zionist inside job) by expelling all the Russian Jews from the Palestine, as enemy aliens. Who joined in turn thousands of young Russian Jew dissidents in England. Still unwilling to fight for the Tsar, but their Zionist ideology led them to follow (Jabotinsky's co-thinker) Yosef Trumpeldor into Zion Mule Corps with Brits at Gallipoli. Later Jabotinsky proudly boasted on how the Mule Corps via Petersburg anti-Semites inadvertent aid, helped to obtain a goal: "It was that donkey battalion from Alexandria to open doors to the Whitehall offices".

    Well, to keep this testimony to a practical length, I will 'just hit the high points'. We won't be going to expose all the historically tainted causes of the trigger for the WWI through the Elders of Zion intrigues perpetration. Still be forewarned, it will take you some time to digest as a sly Zionist Brits plot saw middle eastern battlers deviously duped, courtesy of a Jew Lawrence of Arabia ingenuity knack to stab Muslim mates in the back. Simultaneously as connived Britain, France, Russia, Italy and Greece, allied with the compliant Australia and New Zealand in 1915, to pursue Zionist Cabal agenda. While exploiting the unprovoked course of action in a blunt military aggression at Gallipoli.

    Whatever a massive human lives cost in lieu of the Zionist autonomous statelet in Palestine, once having regime change in the middle east. Contested against the Turkish forces of the legendary general Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. As apathetic Brits pulled-off bloody stand-off via expendable recruits source. Eager as ever to volunteer for the patriotic duty call, only to be dished-out as a cannon fodder. Culminating in one of the bloodiest calamities outcome for the duped Aussies. Sacrificed into oblivion in lieu of the exploited ANZAC treaty for no good reason at all. Still such a Zionist spirited ANZAC pact has been revered downunder by the blind-leading-blind dill flock of descendants.

    Some still failed to understand that diabolical Zionists played also an important role in dragging mighty USA subsequently into bloody European war. A war in which the US had no vital interests at stake whatsoever. When by 1916, the Germans, Austrians, and Ottoman Turks had seemingly won the war. Russia was in turmoil and about to be swallowed up by the communist Jews revolution. France had suffered horrible losses, and Britain was under German U boats blockade. Germany made an offer to Britain to end the war under conditions favorable to Britain. But the international Zionist mafia had one more of the cards to play!

    As British and Zionist leaders with blood on their hands struck a dirty deal, led by Chaim Weizmann, the man who to become a first President of Israel. The idea was for the Zionists to use their corrupting influence in the world, and as such to drag the mighty USA into the war on the British side … so Germany and its Ottoman ally be crushed. Whereas in exchange for helping to bring the USA into the war, the Brits to reward Zionists after the war with the autonomous statelet in Palestine. Conquered from the Ottoman's Empire by force as double crossed Abdul Hamid was ultimately stabbed in the back.

    So lets us to put it in the right perspective in reflection on the bourgeoisie Jewry activities on the German soil, within their elitist class (in predominately chauvinist environment). Where although intellectually they repudiated their connection to German people, in fact they never emancipated themselves from the German capitalist class. So for all their grandiose intellectual pretensions, their völkisch Zionism was seemingly an imitation of the Nazi nationalist ideology. Or wasn't it actually, vice versa? Notably during the WWI, local Zionists passionately supported their Judeo Kaiser Wilhelm's reign … before an ultimate stab in the back.

  • Leo Braun

    Mind you, that largely suppressed, the shifty history of Zionism is utterly sordid. To digest it further, one ought to study arduous revelations extent. Epitomised within the researched chapters about the diabolical Zionism. Most incredibly, the founders of Zionizm despaired in public on a difficulty in combating anti-Semitism, yet paradoxically regarded themselves the anti-Semite's allies. For the reason of their shared desire to remove obstinate Jew lesser brethren from the countries of their habitation.

    As step by step Zionists themselves assimilated the values of the hatred against the Jew lesser brethren. Or wasn't it actually vice versa? As Zionist henchmen came to regard anti-Semites as their most reliable sponsors and protectors of their ultimate goal to deport Jew lesser brethren to the autonomous Zionist statelet, carved of the Palestine (natural inhabitants of which to face final solution).

    No wonder Theodor Herzl approached none other than Jew Count Von Plehve, the initiator of the worst terrorist-pogroms in Russia (Kishinev bloodbath), with a sly proposition: "Help my people to reach Palestinian land sooner, and the revolt against the Tsarist rule will end". Von Plehve agreed as he undertook to finance Zionist clique. Although later he complained to Herzl: "The Jews have been joining the revolutionary parties instead. We were sympathetic to your Zionist operations as long as it worked toward emigration. You don't have to justify Zionist movement to me. You are preaching to a convert".

    Moreover perfidious Herzl and Weizmann with the Jew blood on their hands offered their services to guarantee the future Tsarist interests in Palestine. Linked as a package deal along with getting rid-off an eastern Europe and Russia of the obnoxious and subversive anarcho Jew Bolsheviks. Surely by now anyone to notice a very same embodied sly appeals made by the connived Zionists in succession to Sultan of Turkey, to Russian Tsar, to Kaiser of Germany, to British and French imperialists.

    Simon Petilura himself a Jew, was Ukrainian fascist who personally directed his terrorist-pogroms that killed 28,000 Jews in 897 separate terror-pogroms. No wonder Zionist Jabotinsky negotiated an alliance with … by proposing Jewish Police Force to accompany Petilura's forces in their counter-revolutionary fight against the Red Army and Jew Bolshevik revolutionaries. Encompassing bloody process, involving murder of peasants, workers and intellectual supporters of the Jew Revolution.

    Mind you, that Zionist strategy of enlisting Europe's most virulent Jew-haters, while aligning themselves with the utmost vicious gangs and regimes as financial and military patrons of the future Zionist colony in Palestine, didn't exclude Nazis. As on June 21st, 1933, Zionist Federation of Germany sent a memorandum of support to the Nazi Party, which stated: "A rebirth of national spirit such as is occurring in German Life, must also take a place in the Jewish National group on the foundation of the new Nazi State".

    "Which has established the principle of the race … we wish so to fit our community into its total structure. So that for us too, in the sphere assigned to us, the fruitful activity for the Fatherland is possible"… Yet far from repudiating this policy in 1933, World Zionist Organisation Congress defeated resolution by 240 vs 43 votes calling for action against the Hitler. During this Congress the most considerate Herr Hitler announced in turn trade agreement with WZO Anglo-Palestine Bank (involving equipment transfer). Breaking thereby World Jewry boycott against the Nazi regime.

    At the time when Nazi economy was utterly vulnerable. Right at the height of the "Great Depression", when people were wheeling barrels full of worthless German Marks. Thus Zionist organisation broke a major boycott while becaming the principal distributor of the Nazi goods throughout the middle east and northern Europe. Once they established their Ha'Avara Bank branches in Palestine and Berlin. To receive monies from the wealthy German bourgeoisie Jews. With which riches the Nazi produced equipment was purchased and exported to Palestine in a very substantial quantity.

  • Leo Braun

    Consequently, Zionists brought Baron Von Mildenstein of the SS to Palestine for a six-month visit in support of the Zionism. This visit led to a twelve part report in Der Angriff (The Assault) by Hitler's Minister of Propaganda Joseph Goebbels, praising Zionism in 1934. As Jew Goebbels ordered a medallion to be struck with the Nazi Swastika on one side, and the Zionist Star of David on the other. Undoubtedly very sagnificant for the predominantly exclusive Jew elite officers cadre within the Nazi hierarchy.

    Who outperformed each other towards the final solution in accordance with the Zionist prescribed recipe of the brutal coercion versus obstinate Jew lesser brethren of Europe (youngsters of whom, were prime candidates for Palestine deportation). Tainted often with the revolutionary Marxism ambitions, regarded as anti-Zionist enemy, for their assimilationist tendency (the last straw to break the proverbial camel's back). Not that the Zionist adherents minded Marxist ideology to propagate Israeli kibbutz movements.

    In May 1935, the chief of the SS Reinhardt Heydrich wrote an article in which he separated Jews into two categories. Certainly supremacist Jews he favoured, were Zionists: "Our good wishes together with our official goodwill go with them"… Concluded Heydrich. No wonder in Sept 1935, after the Nuremberg anti-Jew lesser brethren Race Laws were enacted, the only two flags that were permitted to be displayed within the Nazi Reich were Hitler's favourite swastika and the Zionist blue-n-white banner.

    Zionists were also allowed to publish their own newspapers in the widespread propaganda. As the supremacist Zionists and their cultivated Nazi proxies had a common interest in making the obstinate Jew lesser brethren to depart to Palestine. Further in 1937, the Zionist Socialist Labor Militia (founded by Jabotinsky the Haganah), sent an agent Feivel Polkes to Berlin offering to spy for the SS in exchange for moreover of the Zion-Nazi riches release for the Zionist Palestine colonisation.

    Last but not least the infamous Adolf Eichmann was also invited to Palestine as a guest of the Haganah. Whilst Feivel Polkes informed Eichmann: "Jew Nationalist circles were very pleased with the radical German policy. Since the strength of the Jewish population in Palestine would be by far increased thereby. That in the foreseeable future Jews could reckon upon numerical superiority over the Arabs". Thus so perpetually compounding testimonies are certainly open to challenge a propos diabolical acts within the heinous Zionist collaboration with the Nazis.

    It's just mind bogging to wonder what accounted for such an incredible willingness of the Zionist Jews to betray the common Jew lesser brethren of Europe. When the entire rationale for Israeli state emancipation offered by the indoctrinated apologists was a delusion excuse to the effect that the carved Palestinian land intended to be a safe haven for the Jews facing persecution. At the time when supremacist Zionists saw to the contrary any such efforts attempt to rescue Jew lesser brethren held for the ransom in Europe.

    Not as a highest order fulfilment of the humanitarian politics agenda, but as a fatal adversary threat to the entire Zionism ideology goal. As, if the Europe's Jew lesser brethren were saved, they might wish to settle elsewhere. Hence any such rescue attempts had nothing to do with the diabolical Zionist stratagem to subjugate Palestine towards an erection the Zionist Vatican upon the Haram as-Sharif.

  • Pingback: Let the offensive out? at Antony Loewenstein()