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.

Equality for all. Or not

Michael Danby – Federal Labor MP of Melbourne Ports, rabid Zionist and supporter of censorship – says he believes in equality for all. After he called for my forthcoming book on the Israel/Palestine conflict to be stopped and seemingly unable to produce an accurate calender for his electorate, the Melbourne Age reports that he’s been searching for the gay vote:

And speaking of Mick, at least he got the date right for the 2006 Gay Pride march. He was seen there [Victoria’s National Gallery] on Sunday, striding along perkily with fellow Labor types in search of the pink vote. Danby’s name even featured on the back of the T-shirts worn by the parade marshals, proclaiming his devotion to equal rights. Danby is the dude who last year urged his disciples not to buy a book (by Jewish author Antony Loewenstein) that he had not read and which had yet to be published. Apparently equal rights excludes publishers. 

25 comments ↪
  • Aaron Lane

    What exactly is the point of this post? You make snide and unwarranted comments about Danby supporting a gay cause, and then draw a completely meaningless comparison between this situation and the one concerning your book. What right exactly did Danby violate by urging people not to buy your book? He did not physically or legally attempt to prevent them from doing so, and so the right of the public wasn’t impinged upon; and he did not force the publisher to stop publication, and so its rights, too, remain completely in tact. Perhaps you could explain to me what I am missing?

  • orang

    why the fuck would a politician get involved with a book publication? – excuse my comment.

  • smiths

    danby is waging a personal campaign against ant in various forms,
    however,
    if i were you ant i'd leave it there,
    we know hes a dickhead and has targeted you,
    but dont give him the satisfaction of tit for tat

  • edward squire

    smiths

    but dont give him the satisfaction of tit for tat

    I agree. Tit-for-tat strategies, when they turn 'bad', are utterly pointless…they only make the titters and the tatters look petty.

    That said:

    Aaron Lane

    What right exactly did Danby violate by urging people not to buy your book?

    No legal "rights" (in so far as we can speak about "rights" in the Australian legal context at all) were violated. You can argue til the cows come home as to whether a moral right was violated. But let's take another tack: is it rational for someone who has not read X to urge others who have not read X to never read X? Even if someone perceived X to be opposed to their own personal beliefs, so what? Why would a rational person urge such a position? And would a rational person provide no serious justification for this position? The fact that Danby has taken this position, and has made no serious defence of it, only makes him look irrational – and it makes it appear that he is encouraging irrationality on the part of his audience. Very strange.

    he did not force the publisher to stop publication

    Let's be more accurate: he failed to force the publisher to stop publication. It wasn't for lack of trying. He brought public pressure to bear on the publisher. He didn't bring enough however. The attempt to censor someone – even if it is a failed attempt – does not provide grounds for the dismissal of the intent to censor. Rather, it is the attempt that provides grounds for the charge of "supporting censorship".

  • Addamo

    Aaron,

    What is it with you guys?

    Can you nto see the irrational actions of Danby here in being driven by some ideological cause? Can you imagine he outcry if some polition were to advocate people not reading a book abto the Holocaust becasue it was biased in favor of the Nazis?

    On another thread, your fellow traveller Chris, advoctaed the shutting down of the production of a play about Rache Corrie in New York, on the grounds that doign do protects the right of free speech on the part of those who didn't want to see it.

    Do you guys not see how rediculus you are when you make these absurd arguments?

  • Chris

    Leave your petty insults at home.

    The owners of the theatre have every right not to book the show for what ever reason they think fit. Not forcing a show that they feel will be a finacial disaster has nothing to do with anyone rights of free speech. Forcing the owners to produce the play does violate their rights. The merits of your argumant seemed to be nonexistant. I don't know if that makes you ridiculous or not, and I am not concerned about how you feel about the discovery of such.

    I am wondering why Antony is using such terms as 'searching for the gay vote'. Is there something wrong with ensuring the representation of what might be considered 'gay' citizens? Are they not allowed to vote? Should they not have representation? Is there something wrong with them?

  • edward squire

    Addamo

    Do you guys not see how rediculus you are when you make these absurd arguments?

    The additionally absurdity of it is that people who make these arguments are usually supporters of free markets. Yet for some reason, when the free market of commodities (tickets to a theatrical event) or the free market of ideas cast up commodities or ideas they are personally opposed to, the arguments for liberty and freedom are thrown out the window faster than you can say "censorship". If nothing else, it proves that such people are not really committed to freedom or liberty about anything at all – it just so happens that free markets (because fre markets are usually embedded within unequal relations of power) tend to give rise to the outcomes they support. "Freedom" and "liberty" are really nothing more than rhetorical used tools to support outcomes they like – they in fact have no value in themselves.

  • Addamo

    I totally agree Edward,

    Aaron is suggesting that freedom of speech includes the freedom to shut down the speech of others.

  • orang

    Freedom of speech is great except when we don't like what you say. – But did we burn your embassies down because you showed a play about a girl being run over by a bulldozer? -No. We just had a quiet word in the right ear and everything is settled with decorum. See, you can relate to that.

    Take the "only democracy" in the Middle East. A bit like the only democracy in southern Africa a few years ago. If you don't count the "beasts on two legs" everyone has equal rights. Or, "All animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others."

  • Chris

    Exactly who are the "beast on two legs" and who stated such. Can you give the exact quote or must you fudge your facts?

    But South Africa was never a democracy, was it? Could any of its black inhabitants vote? So there is no actual comparison the Israel in that regard.

  • Addamo

    How many times must the quote be provide to you Chris,

    Is your memory that suspect?

  • Chris

    It has never been provided in its entirety. Only a snippet which rendered it false. Knowingly false.

  • Addamo

    Knowingly false? How?

    Was there not a footnote providd with the quote? How were you able to determine it was a fraudulent quote?

  • orang

    Seems pretty sure to me that Begin, jew from Poland did say this. If you go to your browser and open up Google, there's a window you can type, "Begin and the Beasts" and all sorts of sites come up, many on the topic. There are of course the plethora of sites who'se sole purpose is to remove from historical record any critiques on zion, for instance ;
    http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_article=775&amp
    "On June 8, 1982, Begin addressed the Knesset in response to a no-confidence motion over Israel's invasion of Lebanon. He talked about defending the children of Israel, and according to a June 9, 1982 AP report, “his voice quaver[ed] with anger and sadness.” According to the minutes of the session, Begin stated:

    The children of Israel will happily go to school and joyfully return home, just like the children in Washington, in Moscow, and in Peking, in Paris and in Rome, in Oslo, in Stockholm and in Copenhagen. The fate of… Jewish children has been different from all the children of the world throughout the generations. No more. We will defend our children. If the hand of any two-footed animal is raised against them, that hand will be cut off, and our children will grow up in joy in the homes of their parents."

    Isn't that nice, he was concerned about children and he said "two-footed animal". So really it wasn't so bad.

    Others-even Wikipedia;

    "…On page 12 of New Statesman, June 25, 1982, is an article "Begin and the 'beasts'" by Amnon Kapeliuk. The subject is the on-going Israeli invasion of Lebanon. Here is the relevant paragraph:

    The war in Lebanon cannot be interpretted, even by its most devoted proponents in Israel, as a war of survival. For this reason, the government has gone to extraordinary lengths to dehumanise the Palestinians. Begin described them in a speech in the Knesset as 'beasts walking on two legs'. Palestinians have often been called 'bugs' while their refugee camps in Lebanon are referred to as 'tourist camps'. In order to rationalise the bombing of civilian populations, Begin emotively declared: 'If Hitler was sitting in a house with 20 other people, would it be correct to blow up the house?' "

    Well Duh! Of course! If Hitler was sitting in a house with 20 other people, would it be correct to blow up the house?

    Well DUH!!

    If Hitler Arafat Sharon Bush Osama Terrist anyone anyone………..

  • orang

    So you see , our coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan went to the Menachim Begin school of diplomacy. Wedding party? Who cares, there's terrists in there.

  • Addamo

    Good effort Orang,

    But in spite of your evidence, I suspect that chris is stuck in some kind of loop where his only reponse it to repeat that the claim in "Knowingly false".

  • smiths

    or to say, leave your petty insults at home, boo hoo,
    even when there werent any petty insults proffered

  • Chris

    So, you still haven't provided any quote, in totality, with Begin saying anything about two legged beasts.

    Obviously Addamo was mistaken, again, about a quote having been provided.

  • Addamo

    I do not have the quote myself. Orang provided it. I wil leave it to him to take this up with you.

  • edward squire

    “All animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others.”

    This quote is from Orwell's satire, Animal Farm.

  • Chris

    Orang provided only a snippet of the original, which rendered it false. Knowingly false. And the original request for an accurate quote was directed towards him.

    His failure to provide such, as his original posting designed to establish a false impression, was expected.

  • orang

    Chris , you are misleading the folks here, many times I have posted the circumstances of the speech of mr Begin, but I'll do it again;…

    " On page 12 of New Statesman, June 25, 1982, is an article “Begin and the ‘beasts’” by Amnon Kapeliuk. The subject is the on-going Israeli invasion of Lebanon. Here is the relevant paragraph:

    The war in Lebanon cannot be interpretted, even by its most devoted proponents in Israel, as a war of survival. For this reason, the government has gone to extraordinary lengths to dehumanise the Palestinians. Begin described them in a speech in the Knesset as ‘beasts walking on two legs’. Palestinians have often been called ‘bugs’ while their refugee camps in Lebanon are referred to as ‘tourist camps’. In order to rationalise the bombing of civilian populations, Begin emotively declared: ‘If Hitler was sitting in a house with 20 other people, would it be correct to blow up the house?’ ”

    But hey, that's old stuff, How about something more recent;
    "Every time we do something you tell me America will do this and will do that . . . I want to tell you something very clear: Don't worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it." – Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, October 3, 2001, to Shimon Peres, as reported on Kol Yisrael radio. (Certainly the FBI's cover-up of the Israeli spy ring/phone tap scandal suggests that Mr. Sharon may not have been joking.)

  • Chris

    You have still failed to provide the entire quote. Begin did not, at any time, describe the palestinian people as beasts walking on two legs.

    And it is not the original, albiet falsified, quote you provided earlier, in a deliberate attempt to mislead.

    And as you well know, Ariel Sharon said no such thing. at any time.

    Why are you deliberately printing falsehoods?

  • orang

    Deliberately printing falsehoods? You callin' me a liar boy?

    “Every time we do something you tell me America will do this and will do that . . . I want to tell you something very clear: Don’t worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it.” – Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, October 3, 2001, quoted from the Independent Palestinian Information Network and the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs.

  • Chris

    Yes, you are providing false information to this blog. Anyone can research the above quote and discover that it is a fabrication. You know know that it is a frabrication.

    Posting known lies make the rest question every supposed item you post as a 'fact'. It places you in the same hand basket as addamo.