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

– If Zionists want to focus on real anti-Semites and bigots – rather than simply targeting anti-Zionists and legitimate critics of Israel – they should take a look at this recent conference between white supremacists and Jews in Virginia.

– The US envoy to Iraq warns of a wider regional conflict if the US pulls out its troops too soon. U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad paints a grim picture of life in sectarian Iraq.

– The US Attorney General defends the US record on human rights in the “war on terror” – hear the world laughing? – while Iraqi blogger Riverbend offers her own Oscar presentations. Neither Iraqis nor Americans are safe.

– The Australian Labor Party slips further into irrelevancy.

– Dick Cheney tells the AIPAC conference that Iran must not be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon. He also said the US would not support a Palestinian state “that sponsors terror and violence.” America’s commitment to Israel was “solid, enduring and unshakeable.” How many Zionists are wise enough to realise that support by the Bush administration is tantamount to placing a bulls-eye on Jerusalem?

– Yet another Syrian journalist is arrested in Damascus. A human rights lawyer says this is another phase of government intimidation of the press.

– A Central Asian ally of the US increases its repression of the foreign media.

– Who wants to be a blogger for Wal-Mart? Get in line, it seems.

49 comments ↪
  • Neo-nazis and right wing jewish groups getting together and trying to find common ground – on racism?!? What is their common position on the plight of the Palestinians, that I would like to know.

  • Addamo

    Unbelievable isn't it?

    Gotta love this line "As far as I’m concerned, a white Jew is white".

  • Antony Loewenstein

    Friendships between neo-Nazis and rightist Jews is odd, to say the least. Strange, though, we don't hear much about that in the mainstream press. Can't imagine why..

  • Addamo

    They probably missed out on the tickets to the AIPAC Conference.

  • Progressive_Atheist

    I read on another blog that Stephen Conroy, who is behind the attempted disposal of Simon Crean, is part of the same faction that includes Ray and Danby. Danby may be Jewish, but at least he's a white Jew.

  • edward squire

    Antony Loewenstein Mar 8th, 2006 at 12:35 pm

    Friendships between neo-Nazis and rightist Jews is odd, to say the least.

    Sure, it's not what one might ordinarily expect, but there is a bizarre paradoxical logic to it.

    Didn't you see Imi Weinstein on John Safran's "Speaking in Tongues" (Episode 5). Weinstein argues that Jewish men who don't marry Jewish women are "completing Hitler's work" and is totally opposed to Jewish men marrying non-Jewish women. He said he would socially ostacise any Jewish man who did this. When Safran asked him whether he considered it racist, he replied that it was not. When Safran asked whether he thought it was racist for an Anglo to advocate that white men should only marry white women on the grounds of protecting purity of the white "race" [a la the Klu Klux Klan] Weinstein replied that it was not.

  • Progressive_Atheist

    Is there a Jewish race?

  • Chris

    Whether there is or not is not the point. In accordance with the definition of racism, his remarks were not racists,

  • edward squire

    Chris Mar 8th, 2006 at 11:36 pm

    Whether there is or not is not the point. In accordance with the definition of racism, his remarks were not racists

    Exactly. Just ask any Grandmaster of the KKK – they'll tell you precisely the same God-fearin' truth.

  • edward squire

    I'm sure Martin Luther King Jnr would have understood perfectly Weinstein's desire to prevent black women marrying Jewish men because of their race.

    Why would someone care about this unless she or he believed that a newborn of a "pure race" is more desirable than a newborn of a "mixed race"?

  • Addamo

    "In accordance with the definition of racism, his remarks were not racists,"

    Right. So if you split a hair 5 times you may have a point, but to anyone not wearing ear muff and welding goggles, it is absolutely racist.

  • Chris

    To any bigot willing to disregard standard definitions and have made up their minds without actually thinking about it.

    Is that what you meant?

  • edward squire

    Chris,

    Please explain why the belief that

    a newborn of a “pure race” is more desirable (better, preferable, valuable) than a newborn of a “mixed race”

    is not a racist one.

  • Chris

    Explain it to yourself. My comments were directed to "Daniel Gillerman, the Israeli ambassador to the United Nations, offers some hearty racism to the annual AIPAC conference".

    I accidentally placed my remarks on this thread as to the reference to AIPAC. They belong on another thread.

  • edward squire

    Chris Mar 9th, 2006 at 2:32 am

    Explain it to yourself.

    I can't for the life of me think of a plausible explanation. Are you, perchance, able to throw some light on why Weinstein thinks it isn't racist? Or should I take it that you agree that it is?

  • Chris

    I am not following your thread. I do not know what you are referring to.

  • Addamo

    Yuo defended the comment as not rascist. Either you agree that it's not rascist, or you agree with Weinstein's statement.

  • captain

    Settled down everyone. There is no suggestion that there was any significant Jewish presence. And it was certainly un-representative of the Zeitgeist in the Jewish community. Most Jews would be shocked and apalled at the thought of endorsing any such meeting.

    To make something more out of this that it is is utterly ridiculous.

    It is also a complete nonsense. Jews come in all colours and races. Theologically, Moses married a Kushite woman (ie she was black).

    Racism is all about generalisations. I hear many of those generalisations here about Jews based on tawdry extrapolations from an atypical meeting that happened over a year ago.

  • Chris

    Again, I have no idea what Squire or Addamo are referring to. I stated that it seemed that Gillerman's comments were not racist based on the standard definition. I do not know anything about Weinstein or his comment.

    Cap, it is a popular assumtion that Moses' wife was black. I have not seen any factual statement but it doesn't really matter, does it?

  • captain

    Chris, it doesn't really matter. According to Jewish theology she was. It is just a simple point that argues strongly against any intrinsic racism.

  • Progressive_Atheist

    You shouldn't have to refer to scripture to know that racism is wrong.

  • Chris

    Now I see what you are talking about; "is totally opposed to Jewish men marrying non-Jewish women."

    In accordance with the standard definition of racism and racist, this quote does not indicate that the speaker is a racist.

  • Addamo

    What standard difinition is that Chris? The Zionist standard one or the one the rest of the world uses?

  • Chris

    Webster’s gives this definition: a division of mankind possessing traits that are transmissible by descent and sufficient to characterize it as a distinct human type

    Likewise racism follows that definition of race, that it is :

    A belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

    Given these definitions, then Weinstein's statement – being "totally opposed to Jewish men marrying non-Jewish women.” – in not racist.

  • Stev

    1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
    2 : racial prejudice or discrimination

    Still ignoring that second part of the definition I see Chris.

  • Chris

    That would logically follow that someone with the bielf stated in 1, would be likely to exhibit the behavior associated with 2. In fact, one would be hard pressed not to have the behavior in 2 once agreed that 1 is their belief. What is your point?

  • Stev

    Gee, the two definitions of racism are intrinsically linked together. What a surprise. My point is that even discouraging Jewish men from marrying non-Jewish women, let alone being totally opposed to it, is discriminating based on race and therefore is racist.

    Such definitions do not work in descending order. That is, the first definition does not need to be found to be true for the second definition to hold true. According to your beloved Websters, any discrimination based on race is racist. Therefore the statement is racist.

  • Chris

    It is not based on your definition of race as per the definition of racism.

    The definition of race which goes with that definition of racism is: a division of mankind possessing traits that are transmissible by descent. This definition does not include belief in a religion.

    Therefore the desire to require religious affinity is not racism.

  • Stev

    Again with 'my definition'. For the love of all that is good and pure Chris, it's not my bloody definition!! It's the definition. And semantically speaking 'racism', quite clearly, comes from 'race', so all definitions that apply to 'race', also apply to 'racism'. That's simply a given. Much like the ocean being wet and salty.

    Watch, I'll break it down for you even more.

    Racism: racial prejudice or discrimination

    Racial: of, relating to, or based on a race

    Race: A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution.

    Couldn't be simpler.

    It does continue to amaze me, however, how when discussing things pertaining to Jews, Jews can be either a race or a religion – depending on what best fits the discussion. As I understand it they are both, but people seem to like to dismiss the racial element when necessary.

  • Chris

    It is the definition you are using to define 'race' in the term 'racism'. It is, however, not the definition of 'race' used in the definition of racism.

    It appears that the definition of racism no longer derives from the current definition of race. Just as antisemitism has really nothing to do with semites.

  • Stev

    It may appear that way to you Chris, but I'm afraid you're mistaken. As per my easy to follow semantic diagram, racism refers to racial which in turn refers to race. One definition of which I have provided.

    The definition of race which goes with that definition of racism is: a division of mankind possessing traits that are transmissible by descent.

    Do you have any evidence that this definition of race is the only one that 'goes with' racism or is this just your personal opinion? Simply saying it does not make it true. All of the dictionary definitions I can find for racism refer simply to 'race', not some predetermined definition of the word.

  • Chris

    While you may be frightened, I am not. The definition of racism you used has next to nothing to do with "traits that are transmissible by descent".

    The new definition of race reflects a different direction.

  • Stev

    You've simply repeated the same excerpt from one of the definitions of race that comes from Websters. Can I take this to mean that you have no evidence that this is the only definition that relates to the word 'racism'?

  • Chris

    You can take it that the new definition of race is not used in the standard definition of 'racism' and 'racist'.

  • Stev

    Ah, so we've moved from 'my' definition, to 'the new' definition. I can't help but wonder where we'll go next. Where exactly on Websters do you find the dates on which these definitions were added?

    And you're right, I can 'take it'. But I prefer to be provided evidence first. You seem to like to skirt the issue. It appears you have no evidence to support your claim. I'll just ask you straight out in an easy to comprehend, unavoidable, 'yes or no' question:

    Do you have evidence that this is the only definition used in the standard definition of 'racism' and 'racist'?

  • Chris

    Your definition is the new definition. It has not yet been carried over into a 'new' definition of racism and 'racist'.

    I'm sorry to see that the attempt to accomodate your whining has given you an opportunity to whine about something else. Proof was furnished.

  • Stev

    That's what I thought.

  • Stev

    Would you humour me and show me these furnishings?

  • Chris

    You will have to go back to the thread, several pages back, to retrieve it. I don't care enough to provide it for you.

    Needless to say, the standard definition of racism and racist will eventually change to reflect the new definition of race. Hopefully a new term will arise to discribe the bigotry in existance based on the previous definition.

  • Stev

    So let me see if I get this straight, you care enough to go on and on for days, making post after post taking issue with this, but not enough to point out which thread your alleged evidence resides in, leaving me to sort through the mountains of threads and posts to try and find it?

    To put it another way: you care enough to rant on and on with baseless claims, but as soon as you're asked to provide evidence all of a sudden you don't care?

    You truly are the master of convenience Chris.

    I'm sure this isn't the first time this phrase has been pointed in your direction – put up or shut up. Either you care enough to take issue with this or you don't. If you do care enough, taking issue includes supplying evidence as well as just making the same baseless claims over and over. If you don't care enough, well that's fine with me but a lack of care would equal a lack of posts (that would be the 'shut up' part)

    Don't get me wrong, I'm not telling you to shut up. You're free to go on and on much like any of us. But don't go on and on and then claim you don't care. That's moronic.

  • Chris

    You do not have it straight. I'm not certain you have ever had anything straight. But I don't really care if you, in particular, ever get anything straight.

  • Stev

    I get that you don't care. All this posting really shows you couldn'give two hoots.

    Obviously I'm having a hard time figuring out to what extent you care and don't. You care enough to keep posting, but don't care enough to show me where the evidence was. I wonder if you care enough to at least tell me what source this evidence came from.

    After all, we're talking about definitions here. The only important source when it comes to definitions is the dictionary. And despite referencing several dictionaries, I've not come across one dictionary that supports your claim. I've referenced Websters myself, which seems to be your favourite. Surely you can remember without checking the post which dictionary provided you with this evidence. Just give me a point in the right direction and I'll track it down myself.

    Or you could prove conclusively that you don't care and not reply to this post. Anything else would be a contradiction.

  • Chris

    You have been lead, like a child, though the explanations. That you can't get it, or understand it, or get it straight, shows that the lesson has been wasted and I no longer care to school you.

  • Stev

    Chris, you are clearly in several levels of denial. I have not asked for explanation, I have asked for proof. References. Something to stand as evidence that there is only one definition of race that applies to the standard definition of racism. You've provided no proof of this so far, despite your continual claims that such proof has been furnished.

    Perhaps you are thinking this:

    a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits

    somehow relates to this:

    a division of mankind possessing traits that are transmissible by descent

    because they both refer to traits.

    Obviously you're the one that needs schooling, 'human traits' and 'physical traits' (the like of which are transmissible by descent) are two different things. If one definition of race is 'a division of mankind possessing traits that are transmissible by descent', then there is no need for 'belief' that race determines traits that are transmissible by descent because it's a fact. I think you will find that the 'human traits' that are being referred to in your racism definition are things like greed, selfishness, uncleanliness and the like: things that are not transmissible by descent.

    I will 'get it' as soon as you show me proof that only one definition of race applies to the term 'racism'. Offer me that, and I will concede defeat and will accept that you are right and I am wrong. Until then, your petty insults and diatribes about what you do and don't care for are much ado about nothing.

  • Chris

    I certainly deny that I am in denial. As for the rest, I am done schooling you. You've proven that you don't care to learn, so I don't care if you learn.

  • Stev

    I take it back. You're not in denial, you're just flat out delusional. The only thing I've proven is that I'm more than willing to learn, as long as I am provided with evidence rather than just conjecture. At several points I have pleaded with you to prove me wrong, thereby teaching me a lesson. You refuse to do so. You don't care to school me not because I don't care to learn, but because of your strange pattern of caring and not.

  • Chris

    No, you've proven that you have no desire to learn. You were proven wrong and you continued to whine. Sorry, but my desire to set you right dried up a few posts ago.

    Have fun with your delusions. I'm certainly not going to humor them.

  • Stev

    Show me the proof. If I was proven wrong, simply show it to me. It can't be that hard to find surely, if it's such resounding proof. An explanation does not constitute proof. Proof requires evidence which requires references.

    You keep ranting on and on about this proof which you have provided, yet refuse to show me this proof. Could it be such proof does not actually exist?

  • Chris

    Why you persist in this delusion is worrisome. But you'll have to get help elswhere.