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 plus one equals three

“It is hard to argue with his [George W. Bush’s] assertion that if militants controlled Iraq, they would be well positioned “to develop weapons of mass destruction, to destroy Israel, to intimidate Europe, to assault the American people and to blackmail our government into isolation.” It is also hard to resist the temptation to say he should have thought of that before invading.”

New York Times editorial, October 7

Perhaps the paper has forgotten it’s key role in supporting the war and providing essential propaganda cover.

11 comments ↪
  • boredinHK

    Sorry have to call complete crap on this editorial.Iraq was a threat , could develop WMD , was threatening Israel and Europe BEFORE the invasion.The fact the invasion hasn't helped that much but looks set to leave a divided ,feuding mess is a separate point.In realpolitik terms a crippled enemy is less of an enemy.And the surrounding states are set to be the biggest losers in the coming rout.

  • Brian

    If you look at the effect the war has had on the perparedness of the US military it seems that the US is the one that has been crippled.

  • Ibrahamav

    Actually, it appears the US has developed a slight limp that will go away in a couple of months after some rest.But that's it.

  • Rich Bowden

    I thought it was a great editorial…..shame about the NYT’s leading role in the media’s unquestioning charge to an ill-fated war though….

  • Wombat

    " Actually, it appears the US has developed a slight limp that will go away in a couple of months after some rest."I beg to differ. The US military looks nothing like the pueperpower it was purported to be prior to the disaser in Iraq. They have been made to look liek sitting ducks my an enemy that is armed witht he crudest of weapons.How humilating for them!! And in spite of the military resorting to allowing drug addicts, the illiterate and those with a criminal record to enlist, not to mention large cash incentives, recuriting numbers are the lowest they have been in decades.

  • Ian Westmore

    boredinHK wrote:Iraq was a threat , could develop WMD , was threatening Israel and Europe BEFORE the invasion.With what? Its clear that the Iraqi army wasn't capable of threatening anyone. And this was clear BEFORE the invasion. For example:"He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours." Colin Powell, Feb 2001, Cairo"Saddam does not control the northern part of the country," and "We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt." Condoleezza Rice, April 2001"[Saddam has not] "build his military back up or to develop weapons of mass destruction the last 10 years" America had been successful in keeping him "in a box" Colin Powell, May 2001In realpolitik terms a crippled enemy is less of an enemy.Iraq was crippled before and a danger to no one outside the country. However, the Bush/Blair/Howard/Berlusconi/Aznar initiated 'World's Biggest Terrorist Training Camp' in Iraq is going to produce an even more dangerous enemy than al-Quaida ever was. bin Laden and his minions only had the unsophisticated Soviets to develop their skills against, mostly in a rural setting. Their successors get to train against well equipped forces using western anti insurgency tactics in urban areas. This should help them greatly when they come, bombs in hand, to a town near you!And the surrounding states are set to be the biggest losers in the coming rout.True, the first graduates of the Iraq Terrorist Training camp are already beginning to undermine Iraq's neighbours. It'll get worse. And if/when they also collapse then it provides the terrorists with even more safe areas and cash.

  • boredinHK

    Sorry Ian Westmore I was thinking that Iraq had a pretty checkered and disturbing past – and that the editorial was talking about how things hadn't changed much . You are right to say that Iraq wasn't a threat immediately before the current invasion but I was referring to the prevous 20 years of hostility , invasions, firing scuds at Israel , that sort of thing. Even Scott Ritter reported that if the sanctions were removed , the WMD program would soon be re-activated.Re the consequences – I think they will be less than you fear . The Arab world will absorb the greater part of any negative fallout .For me , if the Iraqi shi'ites stick it to the sunnis for a while so be it . That's democracy baby.

  • Wombat

    Scott Ritter said no such thing. He stated that such a program could conceivably be reconsituted.Scott Ritter also said that the sanctions were being used by the CIA to locate he weraouts of Hussein so that he could be assasinated. IN 1998 the inspectors were ordered out of Iraq by the US and foloowed by a missile strike designed to tkae out Hussein. When that failed, Iraq said the inspectors woudl not be allowed in unless they dd their job as inspectors rather than a proxy of hte CIA. Yet the world presented this as Sadam being beligenent and non co-operative.Scott Ritter also stated that in 1992, he as head of the ballistic missile inspection program demonstratd that Sadam had no remianing missile program and no missiles. The VIA woudl not allow him to formalise that report and insisted that the number of missiles was 200 (not based on fact of course). * mnths later after more investigation, the CIA agreedto a number of 14 and insited that woud not change nomatter what the findings.The rasn for this was that the US was determined not to alow Iraq to be seen to be abiding by the sanctions in case this caused a domno effect and led to the snctions being lifted.George HW Bush was on the record as saying thea the sanctrions would not be lifted so long as Hussein was in power. That is not waht the santions were in place for.When

  • boredinHK

    "Scott Ritter said no such thing. He stated that such a program could conceivably be reconsituted."OK that is a clearer wording.My point is that over a long period of time , and all the events you mention I agree occurred and were influential,Iraq proved to be a threat.The actions you outline were tit for tat responses which developed asthe UN actions faltered and were countred by actions of Saddam Neither side is innocent in this regard.I think longer and more harsh sanctions could have achieved aregime change ,which would be beneficial to the Iraqis. They still end up with feuding and social chaos due to changing political fortunes as groups move to cement their influence.The war is for regime change .

  • Wombat

    "I think longer and more harsh sanctions could have achieved aregime change ,which would be beneficial to the Iraqis."How do you come to that conclusion? Half a million schildren died under the existing sanctions. Longer and more harsh sanctions would have killed more Iraqi's. The Duelfer report (a partisan appointment at that) stated that Sadam's weapons program was pretty much done with by 1992, so Iraq endured 10 more years of slent genocide for nothing. Sadam was obviously a nastry piece of work, but current events are proving that his sudden removal has lead to a power vacuum that will probably lead to eitther the country splitting into 3 regions, or another strong man rising to take his place."The war is for regime change."Pitty we weren;t told that from the beginning. Mind you, had that beenthe stated aim, the war would not have gained any support. Regime change to remove a tyrant is good in theory, but there no international law or law under the UN charter recognises this as a legitimate rationalisation for war.

  • leftvegdrunk

    Boredinhk, if the war is about regime change then what can we make of all of the other regimes which are not being confronted in the same way? I know that this line of argument is usually dismissed with something along the lines of, "do you want us to invade everyone?", but I still think that asking that question – doubting the official line – is critical to understanding the true motivations behind the invasion.After that, we need to consider whether military power is the correct way to dislodge an entrenched tyranny. The ongoing conflict in Iraq is evidence that well laid military plans have their weaknesses too.