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.

Some perspective, please

Leading dissenting, anti-Zionist historian Norman Finkelstein is, according to Edward Alexander, professor emeritus of English at the University of Washington, “the most admired Jew in the whole history of antisemitism.”

Even for a Zionist propagandist like Alexander, that’s a big call. Does he not realise that such meaningless hyperbole renders his positions irrelevant? Furthermore, he seems to believe that Jews have no right to criticise Israel. If they do, they are, ipso facto, anti-Semites. How long must be suffer this desperation?

  • Addamo

    It seems that current events are driving these Zionist nutters to futher desperation. More and more fo them seem to be getting in touch with their inner David Horowitz these days.

    With teh refusla of mos of the world to join the US and Israel in tring to isolate Hamas, alogn with the victory of Hamas, and no doubt the outting of AIPAC as a rogue element inthe US, Zionists are digging in.

    Thansk to people like Alexander, the charge of anti-Semitism is being blunted and made to lose it;s significance. These people are clearly more happy cutting their nose to spite their face than using their brain.

  • Chris

    Since Norman seems to be the posterboy of every neo-nazi and holocaust denial website in existance, it seems that Alexander, who appears to have better credentials than Norman, has hit nail squarely on the head.

    Finkelstein’s mentor on Finkelstein

    “As concerns particular assertions made by Finkelstein…, the appropriate response is not (exhilarating) “debate” but (tedious) examination of his footnotes. Such an examination reveals that many of those assertions are pure invention… No facts alleged by Finkelstein should be assumed to be really facts, no quotation in his book should be assumed to be accurate, without taking the time to carefully compare his claims with the sources he cites…. I had not thought that (apart from the disreputable fringe) there were Germans who would take seriously this twenty-first century updating of the ‘Protocols of the Elders of Zion.’ I was mistaken.”

    Peter Novick,

    whose work Finkelstein described as the “initial stimulus” for The Holocaust Industry (p. 4),

    ‘Offene Fenster und Tueren,’
    Sueddeutsche Zeitung, February 7, 2001

  • Chris C
  • Antony Loewenstein

    It is indeed rich. People across the Arab world treat the US with appropriate contempt and their behaviour towards Hamas has only reinforced the bankruptcy of their position.

  • Addamo

    So Chris,

    At least Novik makes the first reasoned argument against Filkenstain, where Alexander and his ilk resort hyperbole and meanignelss and unsubstatiated diatribe we’ve come to expect from the Hotowitz school of debate. Few have even taken Filkenstaint to task for his arguments, preferring to imply that those who consider what Filkenstien has to say must be part of an anti-Semtic movement. Very lame andentirely predictable.

    Novik’s critique does nto stipulate which assertinos by Filkenstein are questionable. What did Filenstein mean when he refreed to Peter Novick, when decribign him as the “initial stimulus” for The Holocaust Industry? Was he payign hmage to Novik or was he criticising Novik for being party ot the olocaust industry, of which Filkenstein is such an ardent critic?

    Of course, it goes without saying that Filkenstein competely dissected Allan Derschowitz’a work, and did the same in a face to face debate with him, so if Filkestein’s assertions are questionable, what does that say about poor Deschowitz?

  • orang

    I guess as a leftie, I have to thank my lucky stars that I'm not also jewish. I mean, if say, Pele (the greatest footballer who ever lived) were jewish and maybe had said something like "you know, the jews really f@cked the Palistinians", pretty soon we'd be questioning his actual existence.

    Yeah OK he did play for Brazil like on three world cup finals, which they won, but was he any good?
    Did he ever deserve to be selected?
    I'm not sure who you're talking about – Pele? did he play basketball for the New York Knicks? No, he was an anti-semite from Brazil.

  • Chris

    You would have to ask Novik what he means, I was merely supplying the quote. It does not appear that Finkelstein did anything that affected the quality or respect given Dershwitz's work. That Finkelstein was forced by his publisher to remove the blatant lies does say something about quality of Finkelstein's work and the lack of respect in academic circles.

    Alexander, an eminant scholar, was not merely slinging mud. I believe he was fairly accurate with "his chief acolyte Norman Finkelstein is a best-selling author in Germany even though his books are deemed worse than worthless by nearly all scholars, including German ones."

  • Addamo

    Filkenstein's critique of Derchowitz has completely discredited him. That's why Derchowitz went to such extremes to prevent Filkensteins book being released last year, applealing even to the Governator to put an halt on the release of Beyond Chutzpah.

    Finkelstein was forced to remove a very few stetments, which in the context of a whole critiue aimed at Derchowitz, is harldy a failure on his part so much as an indictement of Dershowitz given how much he mobilized to have Finkelstein's book prevented from being published.

    Who is it that deems Finkelstein's wokr worhtless other than his opponents? Utterly meanlingless statement that one Chris.

  • Chris

    You must have read some review that was not very factual. Dershowitz remains very credited no matter how much Norman rants and raves.

    Dershowitz's demolision of Norman forced the publisher to hold up publication until Norman removed the outright lies.

    I am surprised that nearly all scholars are Norman's opponents, but clearly he has earned their opposition. Seems much more meaningful now.

  • Addamo

    Dershowitz is synonimous with incoherent punditry thourhout North America. OIn his debate with Filkenstain he came out oooking like a complete amature. Filkenstin was asked to remove a few senetences. Teh majority of the work was published in full.

    Avi Shlaim of Oxford University calls Beyond Chutzpah “Brilliantly illuminating… On display are all the sterling qualities for which Finkelstein has become famous: erudition, originality, spark, meticulous attention to detail, intellectual integrity, courage, and formidable forensic skills.”

    Chutzpah has been consingend to the dustbins of fraud and plagiarism.

  • Addamo

    Chutzpah of course being the works of Dershowitz.

  • Chris

    Can you please show any review that states that Dershowitz's punditry is incoherent? Or that North Americans believe that to be true?

    Again, please post any objective reviews showing Dershowitz acted as an amatuer?

    From one of the many essays on the subject:

    Dershowitz is impatient with that line of defense. “One of the most offensive things they are saying in their defense is that they have the support of Jews. Our staff is Jewish, the people who endorsed the book are Jewish, some of our best friends are Jewish. Well, Norman Finkelstein proves that a Jew can be an anti-Semite,” he says. In the end, Dershowitz has little doubt about why the press published Beyond Chutzpah. “I think they have a double standard for judging the hard anti-Zionist right than they would for David Duke and the far right. But David Duke and Norman Finkelstein are the same,” he says. “Except that Duke is slightly brighter.”