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.

Agents of influence

Days after former Pentagon analyst Larry Franklin was sentenced to jail for sharing classified information with Zionist lobbyists, American Jewish leaders are concerned about the fall-out:

“Anti-Defamation League director Abe Foxman said the Franklin affair could potentially pose a threat to all Jewish lobbyists.

“Foxman said it is not clear what exactly is allowed in terms of the relationships between the administration and the media and between nongovernmental organizations and foreign governments. The lack of clarity, he said, could have a destructive influence on the activities of all U.S. Jewish groups.”

Some other Jewish leaders are even more outraged:

“Malcolm Hoenlein [executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations] labelled the ruling ‘disturbing,’ a comment greeted by applause from the audience to whom he spoke about US-Israel relations at the Interdisciplinary Center’s Herzliya Conference.

“‘The very fact that this kind of climate can exist in the capital of the United States is unacceptable,’ Hoenlein said of the sentencing as well as subtle anti-Semitism heard in the corridors of power.

“He added, ‘[That] two patriotic American citizens who are working for Jewish organizations who did nothing to violate American security, should have to stand trial and be subject to the public scrutiny and public humiliation, frankly I find very disturbing and a matter that we all have to look at in a much more serious way.’

Once again, alleging anti-Semitism in an attempt to deflect legitimate questions and criticisms shows the desperation of the Zionist lobby. It also proves that greater public awareness of the largely secret relationship between the US and Israel is feared by the same individuals.

Gorillia in the Room explained in May 2005 the various issues raised by the Franklin case. The American public are largely ignorant of the individuals and allegiances behind the Iraq war and current rumblings over Iran. Gorilla revealed what was at stake:

“I know that these questions lead in directions where the media generally doesn’t go – did we really invade Iraq at least in part as a result of the influence of the Israel lobby? Are we being pushed into a confrontation with Iran the same way? That’s the real question raised by this case. [Zionist lobbyists] AIPAC and its defenders are going to try to spin this investigation as motivated by anti-Semitism. I would urge you not to buy into that without carefully evaluating such charges yourself. They’ve been caught receiving classified information illegally so that they could lobby for war with Iran, and now they’re trying to change the subject.”

Meanwhile in Australia, such questions are ignored.

31 comments ↪
  • Wombat

    It's laughable that the same corridors of power that donate more money to Israel than any other country, are being accused of anti-Semitism.No mention is made of wrongdoing, or aknowledgment of even mistakes being made. Especialy seeing as Israel has been caught before with it;s hand in the cookie jar.Unbelievable.

  • Ibrahamav

    Israel didn't do anything. Franklin, an American did. And the information he provided was not designed to damage the US. And it was not made for monitary reward. And he thought the information provided would save lives.Do you have a problem with saving Jewish lives? The Jewish lobbies in America are obsessed with saving lives, just as Arab lobbies in arabia appear to be obsessed with killing people.

  • Wombat

    IbrahamHow do you knwo so much about this the information that was passed on? You yourself admitted Frankllin proabably did what he did becasue he was offered a career opportunity.Please provide a link that proves th ainformation passed on was saving Israeli lives. And then prove that the US were not prepare to do anything to ensure those Israeli lives would be saved.Your last remark was typical of the biggotry you have come to personify Ibraham.

  • Progressive Atheist

    If you believe the Jews are God's chosen people, then a Jewish life is worth more than an Arab life. By the rate of killing in Israel-Palestine, it appears that one Jewish life is worth three Arab lives.

  • Ibrahamav

    So much addamo, so little time to denounce it. Lucky that it is so easy to do.I, of course, said no such thing as "You yourself admitted Frankllin proabably did what he did becasue he was offered a career opportunity." It is a damnable lie for anyone to even imply it was what i wrote. Mostly bulladdamo.The information that was passed, which Franklin got "caught" had to do with saving lives.While I can not say this is a good source, it does cover this particular story part.http://shininglight.us/mt/archives/2005/05/the_bush_admini.htmlThe FBI's probe of AIPAC "appears to have intensified only after the FBI monitored a call between Franklin and reporters at CBS News in May 2004, in which he allegedly disclosed information about aggressive Iranian policy in Iraq." "In the conversation with CBS, Franklin's remarks reportedly revealed sensitive intelligence intercepts, potentially compromising sources and methods of intelligence gathering, according to some sources aware of the call." After this call, "the FBI's counterintelligence division, headed by David Szady, who also supervised the alleged campaign against Ciralsky, confronted Franklin, according to sources familiar with the case. Threatened with charges of espionage and decades of imprisonment, Franklin was deployed to set up a sting against AIPAC, the sources say." "Under FBI pressure, Franklin agreed to feed AIPAC's Rosen and Weissman bogus information about plans to kidnap Israelis in Kurdistan, the sources say. AIPAC officials reportedly passed that information to the Israeli Embassy in an attempt to save lives, sources say."

  • Wombat

    Ibraham,You are a liar. On the last thead on this subject, you stated that Franklin was doign thbis in return for a promotion. Go back and check, but it's tehre in B&W.If the informtion Franklin was passing on was so harmless then there would be no justificsatino for a 13 year sentene. But why bother you with the facts?

  • Ibrahamav

    _01, you read it. In fact, cut and paste it. Until then, stop trying to spread bulladdamo and call it truth.Whether it was harmless or not is not a part of the sentencing procedure. Did he violate the law? Was is the penalty? How harsh must it be to get him to cooperate, even to the point of telling lies? Kind of like torture, wouldn't you say?

  • Wombat

    Saturday, January 21, 2006 2:53:19 PM Ibrahamav said…"It was merely a case of an American doing a favor for a friendly nation while hoping to advance his career."There you go you liar."Whether it was harmless or not is not a part of the sentencing procedure."The senetcen was based on the passing of classigfied information. Information is classified for a good reason – too keep it out of enemy hands. So yes, it was far from harmelss by th every defnition. "Did he violate the law?"Yes."Was is the penalty?"Up to 26 years but he got 13. I'm guessing he probably negotiated a limited sentence by agreeing to testify against the APIAC lobbyists."How harsh must it be to get him to cooperate, even to the point of telling lies? Kind of like torture, wouldn't you say?"Yeah well seeing as it's back in Vogue in the US, anything is possible. Funy though how if they did torure him, why they gave him a suspended senetence.Telling lies? Anyting is possible, but the FBI has hundreds of hours of tapes, hard frive informsation and woretaps to enter into a courtroom.Any conspiracy theory is better than admitting the obvious, especially for a now proven liar.

  • violet

    progressive atheistThis is a very interesting statement. Can I see your statistics and your source? Or, shall I assume you are spouting propaganda? By the rate of killing in Israel-Palestine, it appears that one Jewish life is worth three Arab lives.

  • Progressive Atheist

    Almost 1900 Palestinians have been killed since the start of the “al-Aqsa Intifada”, compared to almost 700 Israelis.http://www.ict.org.il/articles/articledet.cfm?articleid=440Around 1450 Palestinians have been killed since the start of the "al-Aqsa Intifada", compared to more than 525 Israelis.http://www.kokhavivpublications.com/2002/israel/06/0206231014.htmlSo, the figure of 3:1 is correct, according to the above sites.However…In the first study period The Times reported Israeli deaths at a rate 2.8 times higher than Palestinian deaths, and in 2004 this rate increased by almost 30%, to 3.6, widening still further the disparity in coverage. The Times’ coverage of children’s deaths was even more skewed. In the first year of the current uprising, Israeli children’s deaths were reported at 6.8 times the rate of Palestinian children’s deaths. In 2004 this differential also increased, with deaths of Israeli children covered at a rate 7.3 times greater than the deaths of Palestinian children. Given that in 2004 22 times more Palestinian children were killed than Israeli children, this category holds particular importance. We could find no basis on which to justify this inequality in coverage.I can account for this disparity. The Times is a Zionist rag!If we go by child deaths, it would be fairer to say that one Jewish child's life = 22 Palestinian children's lives.Killing anyone is wrong, but these statistics overwhelming prove the wickedness of the Israeli pigs (Violet's term).Now, call me an anti-Semite!

  • violet

    progressive atheistbut these statistics overwhelming prove the wickedness of the Israeli pigsthe first web site you provided a link for, is not reputable and the second does not work. And you dismiss a site like The Times? Enough said.Regardless, I too can insert links to sites that disprove the figures you supplied. But, honestly I can't see the point when you refer to my relatives as Israeli pigsYou have no interest in listening to alternative viewpoints. Have you ever lived in Israel — to call Israeli people names like that? I don't know what you are, but you are not a person worth debating.

  • Progressive Atheist

    Violet,You used the term "Arab pigs". I was merely responding in kind. If you take offence at the term "Israeli pigs", you should consider the offence that you do to others by use of the term "Arab pigs".Remember the adage: Do to others as you would have them do to you. (Jesus, Hillel, and many others)

  • violet

    progressive atheistWhen have I referred to Arabs as pigs?Please copy and paste this. Otherwise apologise.

  • violet

    progressive atheistIn fact, I am calling you a liar. Your claim is untrue and you know it.

  • Progressive Atheist

    It was in one of the deleted comments.

  • Ibrahamav

    I'm sure it is in one of the deleted comments where eddie admitted to being an antisemite and AL admitted that he hated jews.

  • Wombat

    Spoken like a proven liar.

  • Ibrahamav

    Indeed you and progressive have been tagged as proven liars.Learn to live with it.

  • Ibrahamav

    Former Pentagon analyst sentenced in spying case2006/1/22By Matthew Barakat ALEXANDRIA, Virginia, APFrustrated with what he saw as government inaction against the threat posed by Iran, Pentagon analyst Lawrence A. Franklin decided to take national security into his own hands. He leaked classified information to reporters, an Israeli diplomat and two members of a pro-Israel lobbying group, hoping the National Security Council would take notice. He certainly got the government's attention. Franklin was sentenced Friday to more than 12 years in prison, even though the judge who sentenced him believed his intentions were good. "The defendant did not seek to hurt the United States," U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III said at Franklin's sentencing for illegally disclosing classified information. "He thought he was helping to bring certain information to the attention" of the security council. Worries about Iran have risen significantly since 2002-2004, when Franklin said he discussed classified information with the diplomat and two former lobbyists from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Franklin, 59, a policy analyst whose expertise included Iran, pleaded guilty to three felony counts in October as part of a plea bargain that requires him to cooperate in the government's prosecution against the former lobbyists, who are scheduled for trial in April. Franklin's prison time could be sharply reduced later if prosecutors are satisfied with the extent of his cooperation. Ellis allowed Franklin to remain free while the case continues. Franklin did not speak at Friday's sentencing, but said at his plea hearing in October that he was motivated by frustration with U.S. policy in the Middle East when he gave classified information to Israeli diplomat Naor Gilon and the AIPAC lobbyists, Steven J. Rosen and Keith Weissman. Franklin admitted that he met periodically with Rosen and Weissman and discussed classified information, including information about potential attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq. Franklin said he believed that Rosen and Weissman's contacts on the security council could help advance a tougher stance against Iran. He also said his conversations with Gilon resulted in a net gain of intelligence for the United States. "He gave me far more information than I gave him," Franklin said at the time. Ellis said Friday that he accepts Franklin's account and as a result, he views Franklin's case differently than he would someone who leaked to the Soviets at the height of the Cold War. The 12-year, 7-month sentence imposed by Ellis was on the low end of federal sentencing guidelines. Prosecutors had said a sentence within the guidelines was appropriate.

  • Wombat

    So this article proves that Franklin was a puppet and that the big fish are teh AIPAC lobbyists and Gilon.Should make for an interesting trial.

  • Ibrahamav

    Actually, it proves nothing other than Franklin sought to change minds by giving Israelis information that was in no way damaging to the US.It does make one believe that there was some residual antisemitism behind the FBI's actions.It also show's AL's agenda.

  • Wombat

    It most ertainyl proves that 2 AIPAC lobbyists got caught red handed as well as an Israeli ambassador.Youre suggestion of anti-Semtism is misplaced. Is a policemen who apprehends a jewish thief anti-Semitic for cathing him? Of course not. Very bad form.

  • violet

    progressive atheistYou are one big fat liar. I have not delted a comment and I have never had a comment deleted. I have never used the term "Arab pigs" and you know it.You meanwhile call my relatives "Israeli pigs". You are vile and you are a liar who cannot even be honest about your own behaviour.You need to produce the evidence for your outrageous and untrue claim or apologise for being dishonest.And don't get out of this by telling yet more lies

  • Wombat

    progressive atheist,I tend to disagree with Violet onmost issues, but it wod be out fo character for her to make thsi remark. Are you sure it was Violet who made this remark or could you have confused her with Neolefty, who most certanly is capable? Neo has had a qute a fwe of her posts deleted by the administrator for obvious reasons.

  • Progressive Atheist

    Addamo,I have only been on this forum for a short while and I'm not familiar with Violet's or Neolefty's modus operandi, so I will have to go by what you say about whether such comments are out of character for Violet or not. To the best of my memory it was Violet who made these remarks about "Arab pigs".One way to resolve this dispute would be for the blog administrator to restore the offending comments. This will show who made them. Another way would be for Neolefty to come forward and to confirm or deny whether it was she who made the remark.In the meantime, I will take the opportunity to apologize to Violet for making her take offence, even though I think her reaction was a little overblown.I would also ask Violet to apologize for calling me a liar. I will also say that I will be watching her and others like her for their offensive language, and I will be vigilant in calling them to account for their discriminatory language towards Arabs.

  • Wombat

    As will all of us Progressive Atheist,You learn to develop a thick skin on this forum and discriminate between bain farts and outright offensive language. AL is being proactive in this capacity and I think it's for the better. If someone is unable to convey a mesage without abusing others, they have no place here.

  • Antony Loewenstein

    "If someone is unable to convey a mesage without abusing others, they have no place here."Indeed. Robust debate is healthy and encouraged. Outright abuse is not. Some people clearly are unable to tell the difference.

  • violet

    The fact is progressive atheist, I know I did not use that phrase because it is not something I would ever say. I object to the Arab culture, not to individual Arabs. I believe Islamic culture treats women appallingly and I will always have strong things to say about this. I do not wish to destroy Islam, but I believe (as many Muslim feminists do) that it desperately needs a reformation.However, I have never called people names or used bad language to express my perspective. It isn't a way I speak, either online or off.You, on the other hand, did. You not only misrepresented me but you called my Israeli relatives "pigs". Despite this, I accept your apology, But, as far as things stand, I do not believe I have anything to apologise for. Why don't you go back through the posts and find the one you took offence to. You'll find it was not mine. The onus is on you to prove your statement not on anyone else to disprove it.The terribly sad thing about this is that you (and I don't know you) probably (I'm guessing) advocate the achievement peace in Israel by creating two states, or by combining two cultures into one state. This blog, after all, exists as a venue for debating different concepts to achieve peace in that country.Now, how praytell, do you expect that to ever happen when you refer to half the cultural population as "pigs". Do you think peace can be achieved by namecalling? There is a difference between debate, heated discussion and outright offensive language. I suggest you find it, because your comments offended me deeply.

  • Progressive Atheist

    If you read my original remarks, you will realize a) I was responding to someone using the term "Arab pigs", and b) I was not directing the remarks at you.As I have told you, the comment containing the remark "Arab pigs" has been deleted. So there is no need to tell me to prove where I got it. If you persist in doing so, I will simply ignore you.If immoderate language offends you, you should be criticizing Ibrahamav and other posters. I suggest you cannot because of your partisan politics (in support of the apartheid state).I do not expect you to apologize to me for calling me a liar, for I realize now that you do not have sufficient moral courage.I agree with you that Islam requires reformation, and I would add that Zionism does also.

  • Wombat

    Violet,Progressive Atheist does have a point about the blinkers you and Melanie have abotu Ibrham's abuse. While you and Melanie remain within the bouds of decency, he clerly does no and yet you object to far more tame posts.Just a thought.

  • Ibrahamav

    As Israel is not an apartheid state, there is no one supporting such. But those who support Jordan and Saudi Arabia are supporting apartheid states.Girls I'm sorry that the word addamo offends you so much, I will try to tone it down.Progressive – add anything you'd like. You have posted so many falsehoods nobody's reading it anymore.