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.

Sick system

Was the 2004 US election stolen? Robert F. Kennedy Jr thinks so, and explains how in a devastating Rolling Stone feature.

  • captain

    The left are such bad losers! Sorry, losers!!

  • well that was a substantial contribution, captain. thanks for playing, i think your mommy has a sandwich ready for you now.

    AL- what's truly shocking isn't that it was stolen. most of us in the lefty blogosphere in the us have known it, and blogged on it for years now. no, what's truly shocking is the complete SCLM blackout.

    honestly, i'm not sure what to do about this year's elections. from what bradblog details, it's basically too late to change out the faulty machines in time for elections and put in new ones. HAVA has made it basically illegal to have paper and pencil voting. so the short version is: we're f*cked.

  • Addamo

    The Diebold electronic voting machines have been proven to be a joke. If wrongdoing has taken place then surely this needs to be investigated.

    It took place in 2000, so what's the surprise that it may have been repeated in 2004? Kenneth Blackwell of Ohio was rejecting previsiona ballots on the grounds that they were printed on the wrong grade of paper.

    Captain subscribes to the idea that posession is 9 tenths of the law.

  • pre-dawn leftist


    Care to address the substantive allegations made in the article, or is that too scary for you?

    Face facts, the evidence is insurmountable, and this is not news.

  • captain

    Let the courts address the substantive allegation. I am just sick of these sore losers who have to talk to Rolling Stone as the last group that takes Kennedy seriously any more. They have always had a remarkable tolerance for alcoholics.

  • Addamo

    That's a funny one Captain.

    The courts put Bush into the White House in 2000.

  • captain

    Addumbo, its so amusing to hear the left whine about 2000 and even more laughable about 2004. Pity Kerry didn't share your view. But what would he know?!

  • Glenn Condell

    If America is fair dinkum, the perps here, and they must go all the way up to Rove at least, should spend a long time in jail. Subverting the vote – what is the penalty for that? Nationwide attempts to derail democracy, not local Tammany Hall stuff; what would the penalty be had Repugs found Democrats guilty?

    What a carrier or perhaps agent of moral disease the Republican Party has become. A few brave bastions remain uninfected but the body is turning into a carcass nonetheless. The rot has spilled into the Democrats but they aren't terminal yet. Stolen elections, invasion of privacy of citizens, especially those opposed to them, illegal invasion of other nations for gain (and organised lies told to do so), torture of illegally held and mostly innocent captives, blithe bombing of civilian sites, the theft of national wealth by a tiny portion of the economic elite, the unconcern for future generations obvious in their contemptuous disregard of looming environmental disaster, the chauvinism of a barbarous Christianity, the alignment with, or maybe fealty to the poisonously arrogant state of Israel and it's enormously powerful and very active agents around the world, the reliance on secrecy, force and propaganda to achieve outcomes inimical to all but them or what they preceive as their consituency.

    They are a virus, and underlying it all is the almost too painful realisation that the past 6 years should not have happened at all.

  • Glenn,

    Take heart. The "invincibility" of the neo conservative mindset and their bunch of fellow travellers, rednecks and assorted religious freaks is on the wane as the chickens in the world economy come home to roost, and people see through the bulldust that they have kicked up. There is only so much corruption and rot that a system will tolerate before it collapses under its own weight. This is happening in the US, Australia and the UK.

    Comments such as those by Captain (which are not uncommon) show how little depth this group have and that they have run out of ideas.

    Remember "this too shall pass"…

  • Addamo

    Indeed Glenn,

    The Democrats are just as infested as the Repugs. Did you see both sides of the House give Olmert a standing ovation befor ehis speech? Have you seen them do that for any other state leader? That's what you get when you own both sides of politics.

    What;s the matter Captain, did you find out where the missing 350,000 ballots in Ohio went?

  • ed squire

    Addamo Jun 2nd, 2006 at 11:30 pm

    Captain subscribes to the idea that posession is 9 tenths of the law.

    More like: Captain subscribes to the idea that theft is nine tenths of the law.

  • viva peace

    pre-dawn leftist

    Clearly you are oblivious to the reality that the Clinton Administration was a neoconservative administration.

  • Comical_Ali

    Condell, apart from Fisk, I've never heard anyone spout so much shit in my one single paragraph.

  • captain

    Once again ed seems confused about the notion of possession. My guess is that he doesn't have many possessions and hence the confusing and absurdly pseudo-intellectual lack of reasoning. The losers did not assert possession, so who can claim it was stolen? Who owned it? Surely not flip-flop!

  • ed squire

    captain Jun 4th, 2006 at 12:53 am

    Once again ed seems confused about the notion of possession.

    Let me see how it would go in Captain-world:

    X owns it.

    Y takes it.

    X cries foul.

    Y declares X has 'relinquished' ownership under the new 'Y-Ownership-Laws'.

    X complains to outside observers.

    Y informs outside observers that X can't be negotiated with.

    Outside observers turn their backs.

    X attempted to take it back.

    Y shoots X dead.

    Y declares that X no longer contests the claim.

    Outside observers turn their backs.

  • Comical_Ali

    You’ve certainly rattled my zionist, imperalist, cage but you haven’t rattled the zionist, imperalist inside of me – the evil inner shylock who yearns and craves world domination.

    As the buses and trains of London and Madrid go “kaboom,” as the cars of Paris and Brussels burn, as people are killed or go into hiding over cartoons, as millions of black christians get murdered in Sudan, or as catholic school girls get hacked to death in Indonesia, whilst streaming movies of head lopping and throat cutting float around the world wide web — indeed Condell, the world is slowly waking up.

    Waking up to the rantings of pseudo-intellectual, academic, armchair, Campus warriors…

    Don’t tell me I failed this exam?

  • captain

    Ed, why don't you just rely on what I have said rather than constructing silly straw men?

    What is your proof that palestinians 'own' Israel? Lets start with that fallacy. And when you are doing this, can you please define who the palestinians are and who their leaders were before arafat, what their unique language and customs were and where they were mentioned in the Bible that you are so fond of quoting. We can then get to the other elements.

  • Glenn Condell

    You're rattled aren't you Ali? You blokes, sayanim or just armchair warriors, are not quite as cocky as you were even six months ago. That sound you're hearing is people waking up all over the world, even in America. To me, it's a symphony of hope, but it's a soundtrack of doom for you lot.

    Relentlessness is your communal trademark but you're running out of puff. Even you can't defend the indefensible forever. They can't say you never tried.

  • Ed, errr – how long ago did Clinton leave office again? Oh thats right – it was 6 years ago.

    The merits of whether he ran a noecon administration is a debate for another time.

  • Addamo

    Not really Pre-Dawn

    The neocons are parasites. They move from Democratic to Republican depending on who is in power.

  • viva peace

    pre-dawn leftist

    I would enjoy that debate, as it is a very "fiesty" thesis to explore. I only mention here to dampen claims that they are the wane.


    I am not convinced that you really have a handle on the philosphy behind neoconservatism and its long history. This is particularly trouibling given how often you spit it. Not quite as much as you spit "Zionist" admittedly, but still enough. This is particularly puzzling given your violent objection to anybody correctly identifying Islamofascism.

    Perhaps a Pol. Sci. 101 community college course might help you.

  • Addamo


    You really want to get bogged down in analyzing what motivates the Machiavellian
    /Straussian/Troskyite ideologues? Especially seeing as neocons themselves are to averse to neocon-phobes like myself defining who and what they are, even if it comes down to accusing such efforts to describe then as anti-Semitic. Sure they originally inhabited the Democratic party, but as we have seen with their defection to the Republicans leadership, their allegiance isn’t to either political persuasion.

    It really isn't that complicated, but your sley of hand to conflate neocons with Zionism is way to obvious. These people are ultimately committed to noble lies in the pursuit of noble causes, and are prepared to resort to any means to achieve them. Neocons stand out in a crowd for the sheer contempt they display for consequence and accountability. Nor are these vermin averse to profiting from the policies they endorse, but don’t ever suggest that they are driven by greed or you might upset them.

    Already we are seeing the neocons turn on the Bush administration like the parasites that they are. Kristol has been calling for Rumsfled’s head for a while now, and the American Enterprise Institute is uspset at Bush for making friends with Lybia. As Gallwoay once said abtou Hitchens, he’s determined to fight till the last drop of other people’s blood. The same goes for his fellow travelers, Wofowitz, Perlse, Feith and co.

  • Addamo


    It's interesting that you are so find of the term "islamofascism" seeing as Hitchens likes to take credit for the invention of this term. You evidently have a soft spot for these bottom feeders.

  • viva peace


    When you have even half Hitchens' genius perhaps then you can spit venom about "bottom-feeders." Until then, don't you think you moved out of the Slow Learners class and started reading material above the sophomoric Finkelstein, Pilger, etc?

  • Addamo


    I had a feeling I would strike a nerve by criticising what I suspected would be one of your demi gods.

    I will say this for him he still writes well, but this alone will not transform or rehabilitate the polarities within him. He is certainly no genius. His pro war arguments are so riddled with inconsistencies, holes, and outright falsities that he has been reduced to becoming little more than a court jester/full time polemicist without any purpose.

    Those he admired , liek Chalabi, have fallen by the wayside. His weekly articles on Slate have decayed into ramblings that suggest that either the drink has atrophied his brain or that he's just become bored with writing, much less willing to exercise empirical thought.

    He has clung to countless post facto justifications for the Iraq war, that have subsequently been debunked. To this day, he is one of the precious few who vainly continue to try and breathe life into the Iraq/Niger Uranium link, the presence of WMD’s, Saddam’s links to Al Qaeda, and nuclear proliferation in Iraq. Very sad.

    If you have been reading Hitchens lately, you would know that he seems to have lost all objectivity regarding anything touching Iraq, much less rationality.

    Hitchens was a flash in the pan after his defection to the right. He was able to get away with preying on the ignorance of his readers when he wrote, his listeners when he spoke, or his interviewer when he appeared on television, but time has caught up with him. The limited shelf life of his rhetoric has forced his to constantly come up with fresh material, and he is has little left to draw upon.

    I could list his failed arguments, but that would take a sizeable essay. He can’t believe half the garbage he’s writing these days, because he is much to clever. Hitchens seems to have fallen for what we popularly term "egoism" and cannot comprehend he may have actually been mistaken. That is impossible. He is Christopher Hitchens and Christopher Hitchens does not make mistakes. So he's got to go backwards in time and somehow proves, at least to himself, that he wasn't wrong, not once, not one bit, not about any of it.

    Even a sophomore can sift through his abysmal literary efforts and pull them to pieces. Sad really, he does have a great mind, but like his soul, it too got cashed in a long time ago.

  • Addamo

    Yes Comical,

    The world is indeed waking up. Haditha, Ishagi and the other accounts which are sure to surface now that the coast is clear, will wake a great many up to the fact that the barbarism you allide to is not the exlusive domain of Islamists.

    Waking up to the rantings of pseudo-intellectual, academic, armchair, Campus warriors…

    How about pseudo-intellectual, academic, armchair, think-tank warriorrs who consider their views from teh confort of their plush offices to be more vbalied than those on the ground in these war torn regions.

  • Viva, now you really have me guessing – how is the Clinton administration, which ended in 2000, relevant to the question of whether neocon influence is on the wane now in 2006?

  • ed squire

    captain Jun 4th, 2006 at 9:36 am

    Ed, why don’t you just rely on what I have said rather than constructing silly straw men?

    Well, since you're made of straw, you don't give me much choice.

    What is your proof that palestinians ‘own’ Israel?

    What makes you think I was talking about Israel. You really do have a one-track "mind", don't you poochy.

  • Addamo


    Don't you see? Everything we are facing is Clinton's fault. 911, Katrina, the huge debts and deficits in the US, the price of oil, all of it.

  • Addamo

    What on earth does "defecting to the right" mean? Is your definition of "the right" restricted to those who support a muscular response to incipient Islamofascism?

  • Addamo

    Strike a nerve? Demi god? Addamo the only thing that strikes a nerve with me around here is how gullible you and your merry-band of Holocaust-deniers are. It is YOU who lives bolstered by a caste of demi gods to whom you defer daily: Fisk, Finkelstein, Chomsky, Said, etc. etc. I love Hitchens because he is a polymath whose satirical genius cuts through hagiographic cant so mercilessly.

    He “still” writes well? You seem to be arguing that the definition of “good writing” is inextricably linked to how politically correct a writer is. If, as you claim his writing is so “riddled with inconsistencies, holes, and outright falsities that he has been reduced to becoming little more than a court jester/full time polemicist without any purpose” then how can be a “good writer?”

    You seem to be troubled by human beings who exhibit “polarities.” What are these “polarities” and why are so irredeemable and even necessary to redeem. What would a rehabilitated Hitchens look like? You? Are you without “polarities?”

    His weekly ramblings are just as fired up with booze as they have been for at least 20 years. Why were you so prepared to ignore all these drunken “polarities” before 2001, yet not now? How many other of your “demi gods” are you similarly blind to today? Why do you excuse Robert Fisk’s booze and/or drug addled contradictions?

    Hitchens, like ALL polemicists has never, ever claimed to be “objective.” So why do you excuse the total lack of objectivity in Chomsky, Finkelstein, and Fisk.

    His defection to “the right.” Oh please. While it is true that Hitchens no longer describes himself as a socialist since when did that disqualify somebody from “the left?” Hitchens has denounced religious fascism and particularly Islamofascism for 17 years, starting with the fatwa against Rushdie. Have you detested Hitchens for that long?

  • ed squire

    viva peace Jun 5th, 2006 at 5:01 pm

    Addamo the only thing that strikes a nerve with me around here is how gullible you and your merry-band of Holocaust-deniers are.

    Please point to statements by anyone who posts here to the effect that the holocaust didn't occur. In fact, let's have a bet. I'll bet $10,000 you can't find Addamo denying that the holocaust occurred.

    I love Hitchens because he is a polymath whose satirical genius cuts through hagiographic cant so mercilessly.

    You mean you love Hitchens now … now that he's become a war-monger.

    Do you 'still' like the Hitchens who demonstrated that Kissinger was a war-criminal, argued that Zionism was built on "lies", and regarded the occupation of Palestine as unconscionable?

  • Addamo

    Good god, Viva, has it gotten that dour for you? I thought you were a cut above the Captain’s of this world, but lo and behold, you have succumbed to the temptation of straw men by painting those who disagree with you as holocaust deniers.

    No wonder you are such a fan of Hitchens, also renowned for his fondnes of insisting that if you're either with him, that makes you Stalinist Saddam-lover . . .

    This ex-Trotskiputz has for the last 3 years, been accusing opponents of being a bunch of "masochists," as supposedly the only reason anyone could possibly have been opposed to the invasion of Iraq was because they harboured a secret morbidly self-destructive wish to lie down at the feet of "Islamo-fascism" and die.

    Hitchens is a one trick pony who is overly prone to unbridled hyperbole. The man writes obnoxious drivel, takes pleasure in his wit and biting words, and begins to believe his own hysteria. Hardly surprising from someone who believes that Michael Moore, Mel Gibson and Mother Theresa are among the most sinister elements in society past and present.

    Like most neocons, Hitchens possesses both a religious sense of crisis and urgency and a supreme lack of caution and awareness in his ideas. He is just another former leftist radical turned contemptuous right-wing quack.

    Who would have thought that he would be doing speaking engagements wit the likes of David Horowitz?

    In his untiring quest to sell the Iraq war three years after the fact, Hitchens these days constantly resorts to some of the most absurd rhetorical devices around — the "oh, it would have been worse if we hadn't decided to commit mass murder and fuck up Iraq."

    His blatant stupidity and childishness makes Hitchens a perfect embodiment of the utter idiocy of the pro-war debate team. They substitute mindless, immature stubbornness for any rational thought, and sheer arrogance for any real moral understanding.

    You say he is a “politically correct a writer” yet he has descended into attacking the likes of Cindy Sheehan, the Dixie chicks and trolling through Juan Coles Cole's messages from a private email discussion group just to pick a fight.

    What would a rehabilitated Hitchens look like?

    I haven’t given that much thought to be honest. A good place to start would be with a shower, a good night’s sleep and starting the day with a cup of coffee as opposed to scotch. Perhaps a visit to Haditha and Abu Graib might hasten the sobriety.

    Why were you so prepared to ignore all these drunken “polarities” before 2001, yet not now?

    Because in spite of his polarities prior to 2001, he was able to sustain his arguments without having to “frame” the debate, or set the “premise” for the issues he addresses. In the last year alone, he's come up with 4 or 5 smoking guns about Iraq that have been debunked within the same week. Whether it was the bomb in Mahdi Obedi's garden, the Niger uranium link that everyone else apparently missed, his interviewing Abu Nidal in Iraq, his claims that Abdul Rahman Yassin was living the life of luxury in Iraq, or that Zarqawi was Saddam’s doppelganger etc.

    Prior to 2001, Hitchens was not advocating mass murder for the sake of ideology. 911 gave him the perfect opportunity to move to a more lucrative side of the isle. Although he knew that the diagnosis was wrong about Iraq, he went along with it because he liked the prescription–an invasion to save beloved Kurds. Now he's stuck with having to lie about the original mainstream diagnosis and those who made it because he still desperately wants to save the prescription.

    Why do you excuse Robert Fisk’s booze and/or drug addled contradictions?

    Booze and/or drugs are not the issue, though I have yet to see Fisk appear on television looking as though he’d been sleeping on park benches for a week. Fisk, with all this faults, usually reports what he sees and hears on the ground. Hitchens on the other hand, claims to have the perfect insight into the situation in Iraq from the vantage point of his favorite bar stool, punctuated by the occasional parachute drop into the green zone for 2 or 3 days at a time.

    Furthermore, in spite of Fisk’s contradictions, he has never advocated military against countries that threaten no one. In fact, I don’t recall Fisk ever calling for military options against anyone.

    While Hitchens may not claim to be “objective” that does not stop him from insisting he is the sole arbiter of the truth. Hitchens repeatedly assumes that the only explaining factor as to why people reach different conclusions from him is their grotesquely inferior intelligence. He suffers from the Bush White House Syndrome, believing that he can learn nothing from others who disagree with his sarcastically presented point of view, which in his mind, proves that they are "cretins". He believes that sarcastic arrogance is itself persuasive when, in fact, it merely masks his inability to make a cogent point.

    “So why do you excuse the total lack of objectivity in Chomsky, Finkelstein, and Fisk.”

    By your own admission, Finkelstein is a dry historian, so he is as objective as they come. Unlike Hitchens, Horowitz and co. all three have remained steadfast in their convictions, which angers Hitch all the more, because they are a reminder of the fact that he has sold out.

    Hitchens uses sophistry to hide the fact that he is a liar, a racist, a dissolute, a coward and an armchair assassin, in short, a perfect ward of empire. Denouncing religious fascism and particularly the myth of “Islamofascism” is one thing, but he now insists that the only option available to the west is a military one.

    I don’t detest Hitchens. In fact, he would be entirely irrelevant if not for the fact that the pro war supporters hold him up as a sacred cow, an example of a left wing ideologue who’s seen the light. He is where he belongs and he has found the ideal forum for his peculiar brand of supremacist nostalgia. Hitchens is an intellectual whore who will open to any bidder.

    If the Vietnam War were happening today, he'd be cheerleading for McNamara and doing his best to slander McGovern. Ironically, after years of attacking men like Kissinger, Hitchens would balk at the mere suggestion that he's become tarred with the same brush.

    By his own admission, the man says whatever will piss off the most people at any given time. He’s just a pathetic fool with so much blood on his hands that there isn't enough gin in the world to wash it clean

  • viva peace

    Holocaust-denial 101 Addamo style. Are you a copy boy for the Institute for Historical Review, per chance? 😉 After all, all your posts could easily be copy and pastes from their website.

    As for the most successful propaganda machine ever, you can’t beat the milking of the Holocaust to get yourself not only a country, but have the world’s foremost superpower play your lapdog.

  • Addamo


    Are you feeling OK or is this obsessive compulsive need to persist with holocaust denial (even when the thread makes no mention of it) a cry for help?

    Never been to the historical review web site and don't care to visit either.

    Liek I said, times must be tough when you have to resort to shadow boxing. I bet you beat yourself every time.

  • Addamo

    Incidently Viva,

    I will also back Eddies challenge:

    Please point to statements by anyone who posts here to the effect that the holocaust didn’t occur. In fact, let’s have a bet. I’ll bet $10,000 you can’t find Addamo denying that the holocaust occurred.

    So thre you have $20k waiting for you. All you have to do is cut the crap and deliver.

    How do you plan on spending your little win? Go on. No need ot be coy.

  • viva peace


    Classical Holocaust Denialists claim that it is a Zionist beatup that has been constructed to "excuse" Zionist abuse of Palestinians. Clearly, yuo are not even aware of the pirranahs you swim with. 😉

  • ed squire

    viva peace Jun 6th, 2006 at 11:35 am

    Classical Holocaust Denialists claim that it is a Zionist beatup

    What's wrong with you VivaLasVegas? Are you alergic to money? Just give us the quotes from Addamo where he denies the holocaust and you can then take an Ed-&-Adam All Expenses Paid Trip to where-ever you like in the world! C'mon maaaaaate.