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.

News bytes

– Steven Spielberg, defending his film “Munich” in Der Spiegel, says he “would be prepared to die for the USA and for Israel.”

– Cindy Sheehan is thinking of entering politics on an anti-war platform.

– Simon Jenkins writes in the London Times how Britain – and by extension, Australia – is “being set up by the Americans in Afghanistan.”

US officials in Iraq are dealing, thoroughly unsurprisingly, with insurgents (or in Bush-speak, “terrorists.”)

– Prime Minister John Howard has memory loss, defends his government’s reputation and spins furiously to avoid further embarrassment over the oil-for-food scandal. Just another day in paradise.

– According to the Mail on Sunday, Tony Blair and George Bush worked together to deceive the UN and the world over their intentions to invade Iraq. I like this line especially:

“And it alleges the British Government boasted that disgraced newspaper tycoon Conrad Black was being used by Mr Bush’s allies in America as a channel for pro-war propaganda in the UK via his Daily Telegraph newspaper.”

8 comments ↪
  • Progressive Atheist

    Steven Spielberg … says he "would be prepared to die for the USA and for Israel."Presumably one at a time.

  • Stev

    I wonder how the White House will spin the talks with insurgents so they can hold on to their 'we don't negotiate with terrorists' tag line. My guess is unconvincingly.

  • Wombat

    "My guess is unconvincingly."My guess is the media will take their eye of this story completely and give Bush yet another free pass to add to the dozens they've already given him.

  • Clumsy Birds

    US officials in Iraq are dealing, thoroughly unsurprisingly, with insurgents (or in Bush-speak, "terrorists.")Oh, here we go…You honestly believe if someone bombs a mosque, takes over a neighbourhood with an AK, targets someone based on their religion, and/or kills a bus load of policemen, it's Bush-speak to call them terrorists?

  • Wombat

    It is when they call blacks in New Orleans "insurgents" for daring to rty and feed themselves in the face of starvation and dehydration.Anyway, the US military has been know to blow up the odd mosque. It has been known too target peope based on their religion. It has certainyl blown up ambualnces carrying wounded people. So I guess that would make them terrorists too right?

  • Clumsy Birds

    It is when they call blacks in New Orleans "insurgents" for daring to rty and feed themselves in the face of starvation and dehydration.No one called the African-American looters in New Orleans insurgents or terrorists (and had the claim seriously addressed), I fail to see how that ties into the issue I raised. In any case, the looters that were called criminals were labelled such because many were not stealing food or bottled water but TVs.Because you cannot accept that the US does not simply kill random Muslims, I'll accept- temporarily, for the sake of argument- your counterpunch-fed line that US forces are Christian crusaders on a war for oil, global hegemony, and to kill impoverished African-American males forced into the army, and keep their numbers down across the homefront by a racist, bigoted, genocidal, Administration.How does that make it inappropriate to call the majority of groups operating within Iraq terrorists rather than insurgents?It doesn’t! The fact is, all you can do is moan about Bush's (perceived) double standards, then jump straight on the 'not terrorists, but insurgents' bandwagon.

  • Wombat

    Clumsy,"It doesn’t! The fact is, all you can do is moan about Bush's (perceived) double standards, then jump straight on the 'not terrorists, but insurgents' bandwagon."That's absurd Stewie and you know it.The fact that you delude yourself into suggesting that Bsuh's dusplicity and hipocrisy is a figment of the left's colelctive imagination, show's how far you a repared to go to avoid aknowledging the obvious.There is no doubt that the Bush adminsitartion have referred to insurgents and terrorists in the same breath in an effort to demonize them in the eyes of the public.As for New Orleans, you are wrong. There was most defintiely, repeated refereneces to combating the insurgency.http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-1077495.phpFurthemore, reports of looting and rapes have subsequently been shown to have been a serious exaggeration.http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/weather/july-dec05/violence_9-1.htmlThere was even footgae whosing NO police helpign themselves to items at a Wallmart, while sayin to the camera that tehy were there to stop the looting. Yeah right.Now please reassure me you're not that stupid and believe any of the Bush party line about being in Iraq to bring freedom and democracy, when the budget for construction Camp Victory (what wil be the largest US militry base in the world at twice the size of Bondsteel) is more than the entire budget for Iraq's reconstruction (which has incidently been squandered anway).

  • Clumsy Birds

    As for New Orleans, you are wrong. There was most defintiely, repeated refereneces to combating the insurgency.Insurgency how? Anarchy is not insurgency, even if a few articles decide to call looters and gangs insurgents.There was even footgae whosing NO police helpign themselves to items at a Wallmart, while sayin to the camera that tehy were there to stop the looting. Yeah right.Corrupt cops? That's not hard to find.Now please reassure me you're not that stupid and believe any of the Bush party line about being in Iraq to bring freedom and democracy,At the least, a formal democracy is being established in Iraq. If you're asking whether the US has its own interests in mind in Iraq- they sure do. Does this self-interest mean that the Iraqis have not been given an opportunity?This book was recommended to me awhile back. I'm still waiting for a copy, but in the mean time I'll suggest you read it for the same reasons that were given to me.You still failed to address my core question. Assuming I accept the line you feed to me from the wonderful, undeniably truthful counterpunch.org (despite employing self-confessed 'creative writers' for a Beazley $25 an article): Why is it wrong to call the terrorists in Iraq terrorists, rather than continuing to sugar-coat their role as insurgents?Perhaps I should also break the news to you that Che Guevara wasn't a freedom fighter, and no amount of T-shirts can ever elevate his position.