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.

Killing Jews is bad

Greville Janner is the British secretary of the all-party parliamentary War Crimes Group. He writes that only one Nazi who found sanctuary in Britain after the war was prosecuted and jailed. That man, Anthony Sawoniuk, has just died.

Perhaps Janner would like to consider more contemporary war criminals. Israeli Generals who boast of killing Palestinian children? American soldiers who kill Iraqi civilians? Australian leaders who participate in an illegal war?

Western consciousness is still immune to the thought that “we” cause mayhem, chaos and death. That’s something only “they” do. State terrorism causes far more destruction than any other kind of terrorism.

We should live in a world where justice is divided equally. A Serbian murderer can be brought to justice alongside an American Secretary of State who wilfully orders the bombing of innocent civilians.

That day is coming.

12 comments ↪
  • Ibrahamav

    When that day comes, anthony better find a cave to hide in because they are coming for him next.

  • Shabadoo

    Essentially it seems like you're proposing a definition of terrorism such that only the most surgical act of war would become a crime – civilians die, and tough moral calculuses are always made in times of war – but the end result of your system would be to paralyze any nation that felt like abiding with the system while letting everyone else off the hook. Going back in time, I'm sure you would have liked to have had Curtis LeMay and FDR in the dock at Nuremberg – just for balance, of course – on charges of bombing civilians and leading a nation to war on a pack of lies.Plus ca change, plus la meme chose!

  • Antony Loewenstein

    A growing number of figures across the world are proposing this. All states and players should be playing under the same rules. Unless, of course you believe in Western exceptionalism.

  • Shabadoo

    Isn't it an incredible manifestation of Western exceptionalism to put together an entire international cross-border judiciary, based essentially on Western traditions and Western models of justice (courts, judges, adversary argument, rules of evidence, loss of liberty as punishment, etc), that will be applicable to American Secretaries of State, African mercenaries, Middle Eastern potentates, and so on? Just to think aloud and play with the intellectual argument here, different parts of the world have different systems, and instead of judging everyone on essentially Western notions of Just War and such (I imagine this being a secular Thomas Aquinas-lite kinda thing), why not under a shari'a system of just war and war crime? Or some other thing? The Koran – to take one example of an alterate belief system – has much different rules about what you can and can't do in wartime, and prescribes much different penalties for wrongdoing. Isn't it presumptuous to put people who follow that system to trial under what you propose, which is even if you don't wat to admit it essentially a Western Judeo-Christian system?

  • smiths

    curtis le may, yes definately, absolute psycho

  • Edward Mariyani-Squi

    Shabadoo said… "Just to think aloud and play with the intellectual argument here, different parts of the world have different systems,"Oh, it's okay. I'm sure people could get together and come up with something everyone could agree on IF they're willing to NOT be exceptionalists. E.g. the international criminal court's not a bad idea … it's just that some people want to be exceptionalists about it."and instead of judging everyone on essentially Western notions of Just War and such (I imagine this being a secular Thomas Aquinas-lite kinda thing), why not under a shari'a system of just war and war crime? Or some other thing? The Koran – to take one example of an alterate belief system – has much different rules about what you can and can't do in wartime, and prescribes much different penalties for wrongdoing. Isn't it presumptuous to put people who follow that system to trial under what you propose, which is even if you don't wat to admit it essentially a Western Judeo-Christian system?"I think you'll find, on doing some book learnin' that Aquinas-like Just War doctrines are specifically Christian, rather than "Judeo-Christian" (always a big fat misnomer). Have a read of Aquinas on the matter (nooooo – don't go and read some hack-summary on the net; read Aquinas himself). It might be worth looking at what later Christian thinkers said about Holy Wars are well. Aquinas gets the boot and psychotic bloodlust gets shown in the front door. And as for shari'ah, it is worth going to the sources for instructions on the rules of armed conflict. For a start, have a look at the 'chapter' in the Qur'an called "al-Baqarah", starting at about verse 190. Also have a look at The Law of Nations by Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al-Shaybani. This provides a medeaval precursor to modern international law (centuries ahead of anything comparable in Europe). Or if you're looking for something modern and scholarly (and thus boring), try Ramazani's The Islamic Conception of Justice .

  • Ibrahamav

    "Oh, it's okay. I'm sure people could get together and come up with something everyone could agree" – EddieYes, every time some yahoo in the UN comes up with an antisemitic one-sided resolution condemning Israel's defence against war mongering adherents of islamist nazi groups, almost everybody agrees to sign it.

  • Wombat

    Tell me ibraham, are those "antisemitic one-sided resolution" printed on different letter-head to the other UN resolutions?

  • Shabadoo

    Oh Edward, there you go again. You really have gone native what with your constant apologias for Islam, and your ignorance of my argument – namely that an international court of justice would necessarily be imposing values, almost surely Western ones, on the entire planet.I actually took an entire course on Aquinas at university, and there's a Summa of the Summa sitting in one of these many boxes I never unpack but just shift from house to house, so I'm not as ignorant a redneck as you think. (Actually, I'm a quite edumacated redneck!)Regarding your "Oh, Islam is so great, and once upon a time was so much more advanced than the savage Franks" argument, my question is, what have they done for me lately? Today Islamic jurisprudence seems to consist of hanging gay kids in Tehran, punishing Pakistani women for being raped, and torturing Christians in Saudi Arabia, and the scholar who seems to have the most sway these days is Sayeed Qutb.

  • Wombat

    You make a good argument Shab, but while you present a good case against the viability of an international cross-border judiciary based on Western traditions and Western models of justice, it seems that this is what we are left with regardless.The US has appointed itself judge, jury, and executioner and gotten away with it thanks to it’s overwhelming power and influence. This system pays no heed to regional sensibilities, and responds exclusively to US interests, whether they be geopolitical or financial.The other thing that prevents any international agreement is that countries demand that exceptions be made to their situation. The US expects that it’s arbiters be immune from prosecution or oversight. Israel expects that it’s security concerns put it in an exceptional position.

  • Edward Mariyani-Squi

    Shabadoo said… "You really have gone native what with your constant apologias for Islam" While I appreciate the 'talli-ho old chap' regarding associations with 'the dark skins', I wonder if you actually bothered to read the books. Did you get round to it? Or did you ignore them on the grounds that such information would be wasted on someone with rock-hard preconceptions."and your ignorance of my argument – namely that an international court of justice would necessarily be imposing values, almost surely Western ones, on the entire planet."Oh, I don't know. I think it would depend on what people would be willing to agree to in negotiations."I actually took an entire course on Aquinas at university, and there's a Summa of the Summa (Actually, I'm a quite edumacated redneck!)Geee – I'd LIKE to believe you, but your ignorance of all matters theological prevents me from doing so."Regarding your "Oh, Islam is so great, and once upon a time was so much more advanced than the savage Franks" argument, my question is, what have they done for me lately? "As I said before, try Ramazani's The Islamic Conception of Justice. That's an interesting starting-point on the modern foundations of Islamic jurisprudence. Then you can look at the scholarly critiques of it by other eminant jurists, and so on. You really are totally ignorant of the entire world of scholarship out there, aren't you? Tsk tsk. "Today Islamic jurisprudence seems to consist of hanging gay kids in Tehran, punishing Pakistani women for being raped, and torturing Christians in Saudi Arabia, and the scholar who seems to have the most sway these days is Sayeed Qutb."You really are a complete dill, albeit an amusing dill. This isn't even in the same room as jurisprudence. Please check what you are arguing about before you start arguing.

  • Ibrahamav

    Shab, you have given Islamic justice to much credit. It isn't that good.