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.

Pants on fire

Global Security Newswire reports:

Former U.S. Deputy Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said yesterday that the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq might not have occurred if the United States had known there were no weapons of mass destruction in the country, Agence France-Presse reported.

“‘I’m not sure based on the evidence we know now that we could have been absolutely convinced that there was no danger, absolutely no danger,’ Wolfowitz, a chief promoter of the invasion who is now president of the World Bank, said at the National Press Club. ‘If somebody could have given you a Lloyd’s of London guarantee that weapons of mass destruction would not possibly be used, one would have contemplated much more support for internal Iraqi opposition and not having the United States take the job on the way we did.'”

Western governments and intelligence knew that WMD were unlikely to be found in Iraq and deliberately hyped the threat for political gain.

So, how does Wolfowitz explain Bush administration “errors”?

“Well, I don’t have to, and it’s not just because I don’t work for the U.S. government anymore. In my old job, I didn’t have to. I was like everyone else outside the intelligence community.”

Wolfowitz is a liar. History has already judged him harshly. He’s just another radical Jewish ideologue with too much time in academia and wet dreams over Israel.

19 comments ↪
  • Wombat

    Like his fellow neocons, this man has no concept of lying. He probably really believes the crap he's putting forth.This man said to Vanity Fair that the WMD issue was nothing more than a political by line that everyone could agree on. This man said that the reason the US was attacking Iraq and not North Korea was becasue Iraq sat upon a sea of oil. This is the man that said Iraqi oil would pay for the war. How is it that scum like him manages to float to the top?

  • Antony Loewenstein

    For now, perhaps, but really, who respects him? Neo-cons and a few journos. History, as I say, has already decided that all these Israel-first war-mongers will be shown as the lying tools that they are.

  • Wombat

    Wouldn't it be nice if failure of catastrophic proportions meant being puniched with a cushy job and a massive salary?

  • neoleftychick

    antony/addamoIt's hard to keep up with you people. How come, I am awarded the title "Zionist" while Wolfowitz has to settle for the bland old "Jewish." ;)I bet you 2 are like those BBC and certain ABC journos who spit his name as "Vulfervitz."

  • David Heidelberg

    Wolfy's job is done. He was complicit in creating the current Strausian world we live in.

  • Antony Loewenstein

    Neo-lefty chick (what the hell does that mean?),Wolfy is Zionist and Jewish, yes. Not all Jews are Zionists, a shocking concept for you, I'm sure.And you, my dear, are a card-carring member of the Zionist club. Welcome. It's always cold inside.

  • David Heidelberg

    I have a feeling that leftychick, isn't a lefty at all!

  • orang

    I am constantly amazed at how these F*ckheads get away with this stuff. They are playing the US for suckers, say they're doing it, and…. nothing happens. Once upon a time, when public servants/politicians were caught in a lie or incompetence, they resigned at the shame of it. Now they get promoted. This cynicism is permeating through society.-Just lie and steal, you'll go far.

  • Ian Westmore

    Addamo_01 said… Like his fellow neocons, this man has no concept of lying.Actually, he does. Don't know if you watched 'The Power of Nightmares' on SBS over the last 3 nights, but it explained how the neocons work. Leo Strauss their great guru made it clear that they would need to lie through their teeth to scare the great unwashed into following the neocon ideology and that lying was okay.He probably really believes the crap he's putting forth.They have a record of doing just that. The neocons got their first taste of power during the Reagan years. At the time the CIA was, correctly, stating that the Soviets weren't much of a threat, that they were in rapid decline, politically, economically and socially. The neocons refused to believe this, citing as their evidence information from a number of popular 'expose' books. The CIA explained, repeatedly, that this was all 'black' propaganda planted by the CIA, but the neocons wouldn't buy it. Not even when they were introduced to the authors.IMO, the most incredible thing these programs revealed is that the neocons were so convinced that the Soviets weaponry was way in advance of anything the US had, they formulated the idea that the Soviets were so sophisticated that they could hide everything and that the lack of evidence about something was proof that it existed. If the CIA couldn't find it then the Soviets definitely had it! LOL!!Presumably the same mind set was also applied to Iraq.

  • orang

    "If the CIA couldn't find it then the Soviets definitely had it! LOL!!"Yes, that is funny…but sad at the same time. Why no-one didn't take a horsewhip to fuckers like that (verbal, of course) and call them the morons they definitely are.They have a radio "personality" talk show right wing fuck head John Laws in Oz who said while talking up the looming Iraqi war, "Saddam is so diabolical that he might NOT use his WMD's to fight off the invasion…".. and we go yeah, he's real devious.

  • Shabadoo

    I think your confusing Strauss with the Islamic doctrine of taqqiyah, but that's another subject.Radical Jewish ideologue with too much time in academia and wet dreams over Israel? Sounds like your mate Jacob Katriel….

  • Ian Westmore

    Shabadoo said… I think your confusing Strauss with the Islamic doctrine of taqqiyah, but that's another subject.Well, the very point that the neocons and the Islamists have the same basic ideology, and seek the very same result was made. They both want us all back in the, preferably fundamentalist, churchs/mosques, both care little about human life (except their own) both want to end all liberal thought and expression, both see freedom as a threat, both want the citizenry to live in a state of perpeptual fear. And they are each using the other to achieve their goals, with a fair amount of success.

  • Wombat

    Ian, Yes I did see the doc. What I was gettign at was that these guys are so used to lying that they no longer delinetae between fact and fiction.How this man can pretend that his hands are clean or that he has nothing to answer for is truly sickening. Wolfy's protoge, Douglas Feith, ran what was essentially the lie factory (the Office Of Special Plans) which created "evidence" out of whole cloth. Shab, better run bac to Timmy Blair and ask him for comethign better than that lame effort to shift blame.And you Lefty have your occasional lucid days. This cearly isn't one of them.

  • boredinHK

    Ian westmore -"both want the citizenry to live in a state of perpeptual fear. "This is close to the idea Mao had about constant revolution maybe.he nneded to always find new enemies.I think it really exhausted the chinese and they opted for Deng .

  • neoleftychick

    addamoI think far too many people are way too hysterical about the power of the so-called "neocons." Also, you are wrong to conflate neoconservatism and evangelical Xianity. There is nothing 'Xian" about neconservatism.The neocon movement basically grew out of despair towards "detente" during the Nixon years. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the neocons advocated taking a once in an empire opportunity to fill the power vacuum before some other power did.Neoconservatism is also very focused on domestic strength. It argued that the "all rights, no responsibility" welfare state was a disaster and was weakening America. On this point, they are most certainly correct.ian westmoreYou would do well to read more critically. A documentary is a collaborative "interpretation" and "advocacy" for a particular position on some issue. You need to learn how to read docos as critically as one hopes you read a journal article or book.I hope this helps.

  • Wombat

    Lefty,You can think what you like, but the fact is that Bush’s foreign policy was non existent until the Straussian neocons were given highly influential positions in his administration. “Also, you are wrong to conflate neoconservatism and evangelical Xianity. There is nothing 'Xian" about neconservatism.”Nor is there anything conservative and neoconservatism. Mind you I made no such association with Xianity.“The neocon movement basically grew out of despair towards "detente" during the Nixon years. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the neocons advocated taking a once in an empire opportunity to fill the power vacuum before some other power did.”Yes you are right. Sickening isn’t it? Most of the neocons were former Democrats and Cold War warriors. They are like a duck out of water when there is no enemy upon which they can focus their collective obsession. Their common philosophy is that the only thing to fear is not enough fear.“Neoconservatism is also very focused on domestic strength. It argued that the "all rights, no responsibility" welfare state was a disaster and was weakening America. On this point, they are most certainly correct.”Actually, the neocons see foreign policy as a way to shape the domestic climate, so in a sense you are right. One of the things they learned from Strauss is the power and virtue of the noble lie. Keep the sheep in a perpetual state of ignorance to protect them from themselves. Wolfowitz is a text book example of such ideology.A free thinking, liberated society is a neocon’s worst nightmare.

  • neoleftychick

    addamoAdam you "seem" like a nice person, but I do think that your very deep and painful denial about Arab muslim world's failures has turned you into a paranoid fanatic. I have come across many of you "neocons under bed" ilk. If you think the world of politics and geostrategic machinations had to wait for Paul Wolfowitz to apprecaite the potential power of lying to the public, you are obviously a very silly man. Mossadd, Sep. 11 ring a bell? ;)Also, you would do well to understand that the Bush doctrine is not that much different from the foreign policy of just about all US administration for over a century. The last time an opportunity presented itself for a global hegemony grab was after WW1. The problem was that the US Senate rejected Woodrow Wilson's imperial intentions.Cold War rivalry with the Soviet Union frustrated attempts for 40 years; but make no mistake, both the Soviet Union and the US lept at every available opportunity to increase their influence.adammo, you really do need to appreciate the differences between UN, Communist, and Islamist/Arab imperial ambitions. The US worked by rebuilding western europe and Japan, as well as countless efforts to resolve through diplomacy the chaotic Arab states. The Soviets merely beefed-up the militaries of its stooges from Cuba to Romania to Egypt to Syria and so on.The Arabs slyly colluded with the British, and maybe even the Jews to make sure the "Palestinians" never got a state. The Syrians, Egyptians, and Lebanese refused to improve the living conditions or extend citizenship to their "Palestinian" brothers and sisters, perfering them to fester in camps so they could be used as pawns on the world stage. But of course, after a while the Arabs tired of the Pals and booted them out of their countries.Trust me, if I am asked to line up behing a Pax America, a Pax Hammer and Sickle, or a Pax Saladin, I know which one I'm going for!

  • Wombat

    Lefty,Yes I am a sweetheart in every sense of the word (after I have my first morning coffee), but I am not paranoid. I am just fed up with the machinations of the West, especially the manner in which the US has played sodomizer extraordinaire throughout every continent since overthrowing the Mossadegh government in Iran – a mantle they inherited from the British before that.There is no neocons under the bed fascination going on. There aren’t that many of them, and as luck would have it, they are running for the nearest rock to hide under after the Iraq disaster. I agree that geostrategic machinations existed before the likes of Wolfowitz, but let’s be reminded that even Bush’s daddy referred to this mob as “the crazies”.And yes, you are correct in observing that the Bush doctrine is not unique, though it has been far less subtle than previous administrations. Lefty, you are being a little naïve to see the influence of the US in Western Europe and Japan and being altruistic. These were motivated by cold war aspirations and the aim to control world energy routes via military bases. At least the Soviets could be excused for wanting to protect their borders. Can you imagine the shit that would fly if Russia were to start building bases in Cuba?If the Arabs have colluded with the British, it was only because of the long history they shared. It was the Brits after all, that pretty much divvied up the place with it’s arbitrary borders.Pax Americana may seem the better option I agree, but we should be looking to invest in broader international commitments, not narrowing them. It’s clear that the way US is headed, it won’t be pulling the strings indefinitely.

  • orang

    neoleftychick said…"…. Also, you would do well to understand that the Bush doctrine is not that much different from the foreign policy of just about all US administration for over a century. "If you were not so absolutely MysoIslamist which affects your judgement, I would salute your astuteness.I am so happy that George the Moron is president. Why? As you point out, he's carrying out the policies that all self respecting president of the US of A would carry out. But as he and his "administration" are such a bunch of lie-in-your-face, with-me-or-against-me, incompetent nincompoops, that they are seen for what they are. We don't see the slickness of Clinton and the c*nt Albright smoothing the way for another 1/2 million Iraqi children dying under US (oops I mean UN) sanctions. Or a nice guy Reagan Contra deal (Ooops sorry was that me?) No. Thankfully we have the dumbest Fuck they could ever hope to pick, along with the scumbag show ponies acting as back up to reveal what they're all about. The result eventually is we begin to realize that the "free and democratic" West is capable of doing some bad fucking shit and we should be doing a lot better.