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.

That’s what we mean by liberation

Leading conservative blog Powerline reveals something special about US freedom and liberty:

“It’s good that Saddam has finally been put on trial, although it may have been better yet if he had simply been shot. The idea that his crimes need to be ‘proved’ – as though there were some doubt about them that could be resolved through a ‘trial’ – is ridiculous.”

28 comments ↪
  • Shabadoo

    What do you disagree with here? Do you think SH is not guilty of first-order crimes against sanity, humanity, and the Iraqi people? Do you think it would have been better to give Mussolini, or Hitler, or Ceaucescu, a trial?

    Saddam never gave his people a justice system; to allow SH to hijack a trial and grandstand and then have his inevitable execution become a lefty cause celebre (“Oh, we’re no better them, and we’re all guilty, etc etc etc”) is silly and offensive.

    I just saw Ramsay Clark on cable banging on about Saddam’s beautiful poetry he reads his defense team, and how he shouldn’t be responsible for his security peoples’ actions…spare me.

  • Antony Loewenstein

    Everybody deserves a fair trial, even those who committed the worst of crimes. It's called a democracy. A foreign concept to many, clearly…

  • Ian Westmore

    Isn't it interesting how alike Shabadoo and Saddam are. Neither are too fussed about justice. As soon as they decide someones guilty then its off with their head, no questions need asking, no bothersome legalities need observing! And neither seem to be overly concerned about torture, as long as its the 'bad' guys on the rack. Did they give Saddam Net access? LOL!Both Hitler and Mussolini would have been tried at Nuremburg, Shabadoo. All, the surviving Axis political and military 'elite' were.

  • RapScallion

    shabadoo provides an absolutely perfect example of the classic straw man argument, used to attack the 'lefties' (of the 'bleeding heart' variety no doubt).The same 'reasoning' if you can call it that leads one to this conclusion: 'oh, so and so who murdered his wife for infidelity didn't give her a fair hearing, so why should he be given one'.Not that so and so could be said to have murdered his wife until the trial is over, but that's probably putting too fine a point on it for some people.I thought the whole point was to show that the new society is above the behaviour of those whom it places on trial for massive crimes, and that it recognises the separation of powers without which there is no 'democracy'. That point is lost on the Saddams of the world, or ignored by them, and obviously, also, the shabadoos.

  • neoleftychick

    antonyYour cultural insensitivity is little less than racism. You seem to demonise the values of the Arab. Summary justice via the sword was responsible for the Islamist raping, pillaging, and plundering the previous worlds of Christendom and Africa. He created and maintained his empire with the sword.The Muslims have lived by the sword ever since.Why do you think that YOU have the right to impose upon them the values of European Enlightenment and rationality?

  • uphillsprinter

    i guess the crusades were nothing more than an exercise of "European Enlightenment".On another note, just wondering how the word 'Islamist' came to be used?

  • neoleftychick

    uphillsprinetOh dear. Hun, the crusades predate the European Enlightenment by, like, you know 6 centuries?But you keep chugging along in Muslim-time if it floats your boat.I hope this helps.

  • orang

    Never mind "Islamist" , how about "Islamofascist"! Now there's a word guaranteed to cement multicultural relations. Probably "invented" by some neocon racist c*cksucker with a small dick and perpetuated by right wing, racist weenie dick arse licking………

  • uphillsprinter

    pseudoleftychicki think the holocaust and the world wars have given 'European Enlightenment' a century or so to… evolve.

  • orang

    Ooooh – good one uphill…over to you pseudo.

  • RapScallion

    neoleftychick's comment is strangely incomprehensible. Something taken from a medieval tract ('the Arab…Islamist raping…Christendom…the Muslims')? It seems to imply that 'the Muslims' en masse endorse the ancient idea 'live by the sword… die by the sword'. That's right, lump them all together, make some glib and ignorant generalisation about history, religion and culture. So it's neoleftychick who is saying Antony's 'cultural insensitivity is little less than racism'??? Ironic. Astounding.I've heard and read that many Iraqis no longer care about Saddam one way or the other (having other pressing tribulations to contend with?). Should they? It's not for us to say, but they're probably not the ones giving harrowing evidence in the 'trial' (which might well turn out to be a US-backed sham, but we'll see). Is there a tumultuous clamour for a lynching or decapitation? Hard to know, if one relies on the mainstream media, but I doubt it.

  • Wombat

    Yes I too find it untterly bizarre to be accusing anyone of cultural insensitivity, when by and large, lefty openly and repeteadly takes every oppornuinity to bash the Arabs.And then she saves the best for last "Why do you think that YOU have the right to impose upon them the values of European Enlightenment and rationality?"I don't suppose Lefty happened to be a big fan of the Iraq war by any chance?

  • Shabadoo

    Of course, by 'fair trial', a lot of people here seem mean 'an opportunity to get off'…I still don't get why the left is so offended by the Crusades, which were in response to Islamic aggression, unless you think our medieval ancestors should have laid back and let Europe go Muslim like a bunch of proto-Fisks.

  • Wombat

    The Crusades took place in Islamic territory Shab. Thus it was not Islamic agression but defense of their territory. You are so enamoured with teh myth of Westerm exceptionalism, that you have no concept what it means to not be white.

  • Antony Loewenstein

    Wonder why that could be? Must be all those friends from non-white backgrounds in his life…

  • Shabadoo

    Ummm…addamo, anty, your history lessons are failing you again. No, the Crusades took place after the conquering of Byzantine (i.e. Eastern Christian successor state to the Roman Empire) lands, which were in no way Islamic, and penetrations into Christian Western Europe. In fact, no place was Islamic until Mohammed and his boys went on their killing spree across Arabia and beyond. Go to Istanbul sometime, and you'll see that the Aya Sophia mosque was originally…wait for it!…a church, which was converted into a Saracen house of worship. The Crusades took place after repeated attempts by Easten Christians to get some help against the invaders – these were, again, NOT Islamic lands.

  • Wombat

    History is defined by when you decide to measure it. The Christian lands were originally bastions of the Roman Empire, which is turn was taken from the indigenous tribes of the regions. Christianity simply rode on the back of the Romans. Isalm was adopted by the indigenous tribes, so in effect, they were merely taking back their land, even if it was under teh pretext of Islam.What then makes Christianity any more credible than Islam? Oh I forgot, white people right?

  • Shabadoo

    "Adopted"…jeez, Addamo, you're an even bigger dhimmi-wit than I thought. Do you also fall for the "reversion" canard?

  • Ian Westmore

    Shabadoo said… I still don't get why the left is so offended by the Crusades,I'm surprised you're not Shabadoo seeing as how on route to the Holy Land the Crusaders practiced their fighting skill by murdering any Jew they came across. They probably killed more Jews than Saracens! When the Crusaders arrived in Jerusalem in 1099 they burnt down it's synagogue killing the 6,000 Jews sheltering inside.which were in response to Islamic aggression, unless you think our medieval ancestors should have laid back and let Europe go Muslim like a bunch of proto-Fisks.The Crusades were about conquering the 'Holy Land' for Christendom, not repelling Muslims from Europe. Apart from the Moors in Spain – whom the Crusaders ignored, any Muslim "aggression" against Europe didn't occur until about 400 years after the 1st Crusade.Ummm…addamo, anty, your history lessons are failing you again. No, the Crusades took place after the conquering of Byzantine (i.e. Eastern Christian successor state to the Roman Empire) lands, which were in no way Islamic, and penetrations into Christian Western Europe.The 1st Crusade was ordered by Pope Urban II in 1095, the Byzantine Empire ended with the fall of Constantinople on May 29, 1453.

  • orang

    Shabadoo said… "Ummm…addamo, anty, your history lessons are failing you again. No, the Crusades took place after the conquering of Byzantine (i.e. Eastern Christian successor state to the Roman Empire) lands, which were in no way Islamic, and penetrations into Christian Western Europe." and " …..Go to Istanbul sometime, and you'll see that the Aya Sophia mosque was originally…wait for it!…a church"And the Byzantines were themselves treated to the "liberating" excesses of the Crusaders. Being fellow christians didn't save them from being looted, plundered, and I suppose you could say in today's parlance, being democratized.

  • neoleftychick

    OMG. I can't believe I am having to endure this nonsense. If anybody wants to know why the muslim Arabs are perceived as they, there is no need for the phoney Edward said. These people are OBSSESSED life in the late middle ages.How are we supposed to co-exist with them in the 21st century?

  • uphillsprinter

    "How are we supposed to co-exist with them in the 21st century?"Seriously, what are you trying to say? Just spit it out, you are almost there.

  • Wombat

    Lefty, baby, breath in and count to ten.You're fellow traveller Shab brought up the Crusades and then went on to show us how ignorant of he was of that period.I know hos much you hate to be educated. You have admitted to being ignriant of Arabs culture and history and appear to determined to remain as such.You're George Bush's wet dream.

  • RapScallion

    This discussion's probably dead by now, but just had another peek at it.neolefty, you certainly leave the reader with a nice little literary puzzle each time: insert the missing words and capital letters (I presume you mean Edward Said, for instance), attempt to comprehend the utterance on a literal level, then try to decode the dog-whistling sub-text which, as uphillsprinter said, gets you 'almost there'. Hard to believe it was you who started your contributions to this discussion by accusing others of racism. That aside, the stuff on the crusades is pretty irrelevant to the original question: I thought it was about Saddam, not Saladin.

  • neoleftychick

    rapscallionToo, too , TOO funny. Hun, you clearly aren't too up on the Arab mind. Saddam's reign is inextricably linked to Salladin. The muslim Arab male has been in a civil war since the 1920s for the right to be the new Saladin.We've had various pretenders mincing about the sand dunes, sword in one hand, bomb in the other, and a teenage boy slyly in tow.First there was al-Husseini (our very first Nazi on camel), followed by Nasser, who was stalked by Abdullah, Arafat, Assad, Hussein. Then we had Saddam who the Crusaders have tied up.Now we have the Persian loon, who is not really an Arab, but that doesn't really matter to these loony-tunes anymore.Time to grab some popcorn and put the pause button on for the all-in-sword fight at the end!

  • RapScallion

    Twaddle typed on bumf, chick. 'The Arab mind'. This is all reminiscent of that anti Jewish 'elders of zion' rubbish that the Arabs themselves and a whole lot of nazis and the League of Rights put about: exactly the same thought (I use the term loosely) process. You're merely confirming what I said earlier. I think you might, MIGHT, be referring to the 'the mind' of about 0.01% of Arab males, who like scimitars and ak47s. But why 'Arab'? You could be talking just as easily about Rummy, Cheney and W. Not to forget Condy. Anyway, it's nice to know that someone (who is 'up on the Arab mind') believes that not one colonial power should bear one tiny jot of responsibility for the generally depressing sabre-rattling situation that has prevailed since the 1920s or even earlier in the Arab world. That the Iraq of the last 80 years is in no way the product of 'the English mind', or the Iraq of today and tomorrow the product of 'the Republican mind'

  • neoleftychick

    Ladies and GentlemanAnd here we have it: the Arab mind par excellence. They think they are Allah's gift; they think they are superior to the infidels; all non-muslims must pay taxes and admit their inferiority. They rape, pillage, plunder, and oppress for 1,000 years. In the 17th century, another, older power, whose science, philosophy, art, and government, the muslim Arab was able to build an empire out of the sand. However, this new Old power was now passing it by.3 and even 4 centuries later the long vanquished Islamic world of the Arab male is STILL whingeing and moaning that OTHERS have caused his demise. Oooohh, it was the Persians, oooohh it was the Crusaders, oooohh it was the Mongols, oooohh it was the Turks, oooohh it was the Ottomans, oooohhh it was the French, the British, ooohhhh it was "The Jews", oooohh it was the Americans. And did we say oooohh it was "The Jews?"PUHLEEZ! Enough is enough already Enough excuses. Time to grow up and become men instead of whingeing boys. It is time for the Arab muslim male to look into his own culture and decide what he has done wrong.He could start by transferring power to women. And no, the power to detonate a bomb is not REAL power.I hope this helps.

  • RapScallion

    Well,PUHLEEZ! to you too.How DID you get from'Why do you think that YOU have the right to impose upon them the values of European Enlightenment and rationality?'to'It is time for the Arab muslim male to look into his own culture and decide what he has done wrong.' ???Time for you to look into your own mind and decide where your thinking process went wrong.Apart from that, yes, perhaps a general transference of power to women would be a good thing. With some exceptions.