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.

Fisk supports dissenters

Robert Fisk’s latest column for the UK Independent, The Erosion of Free Speech, tackles the pressures on individuals and groups that campaign for a just resolution of the Israel/Palestine conflict and dare challenge Zionist dogma. He generously supports my work and alerts the world to my forthcoming book and attempts by certain individuals to stifle freedom of speech:

So let’s confront this tomfoolery. Down in Australia, my old mate Antony Loewenstein, a journalist and academic*, is having an equally vile time. He has completed a critical book on the Israel/Palestine conflict for Melbourne University Publishing and Jewish communities in Australia are trying to have it censored out of existence before it appears in August. Last year, Federal Labour MP Michael Danby, who like Loewenstein is Jewish, wrote a letter to the Australian Jewish News demanding that Loewenstein’s publishers should “drop this whole disgusting project”. The book, he said, would be “an attack on the mainstream Australian Jewish community”.

Now the powerful New South Wales Jewish Board of Deputies has weighed in against Loewenstein and efforts are under way to deprive him of his place on the board of Macquarie University’s Centre for Middle East and North African Studies.

It is heartening that Fisk has offered his solidarity with my position and challenged Zionist apologists that their intimidation will not work.

*I am not an academic, though I do carry academic qualifications.

65 comments ↪
  • Addamo

    So Leo,

    OK, so you argur that the word "controversially" is key, but seem deytermined to ignoore that you butted it up against the worl partisan. Does this not imply one sided, and biased? I have no issue wirth the controversial topics and I see no reason why tcontroversial topics shoudl not be studies in schools.

    The original quesrion you posed was So Leo,

    OK, so you argue that the word "controversially" is key, but seem determined to ignore that you butted it up against the word “partisan”. Does partisan not imply one sided, and biased and unbalanced?

    The original question you posed was a loaded one. Like I said to Chris, if I were to ask someone if they were still beating their wives,. It would assume that there was a history of violence in the relationship. It is an attack on that person’s character, wrapped in a question.

    Antony pointed to what was the only source of criticism of the MU workshops. The participants made no criticism, not the parents of the students.

    Bureaucrats may not be stupid, but they ultimately do answer to somebody and that somebody usually tends to be a lobby group. How many times do bureaucrats lie? How many times have we heard a bureaucrat who has been implicated in wrongdoing, announce that he is resigning from his post to spend more time with his family?

  • Chris

    It seems that either Antony could care less about the questions or he is unable to formulate an answer that covers his case.

    Either way it is our loss.

    Based on this lack, I must assume that Anthony can not back up his comments.

    But I'm willing to give him another shot at it.

    1) Should materials used in State schools be controversially partisan political?

    2) Was your appointment to the Centre for Middle East and North African Studies at Macquarie University NOT political? If so, was that wrong? Were you not obviously and demonstrably appointed to be the Centre’s resident “good Jew”, as window dressing?

    3) Do you disapprove of all political pressure or only that which you find inconvenient?

  • Addamo

    "It seems" your full of shit.

    You are so slow off the mark sometimes Chris. You might tey reading Leo Buddah's reply and see that he has chosen to rephrase his questions.

    1) What (seemingly) substantial reasons did The Departemnt give for its decision?

    2) Should materials used in State schools be controversially partisan political.

    Of course, Leo has yet top explain why he insisst on referring to teh materials used in State schools as "partisan".

  • edward squire

    Here's my answer to Chris's questions:

    1) Should materials used in State schools be controversially partisan political?

    Absolutely. It is an important part of the learning experience.

    2) Was your appointment to the Centre for Middle East and North African Studies at Macquarie University NOT political?

    Yes, because all academic appointments are political. Wake up and smell the coffee.

    3) If so, was that wrong? Were you not obviously and demonstrably appointed to be the Centre’s resident “good Jew”, as window dressing?

    You'd have to ask the employer that question. Maybe you were employed because of your innate charm – but I wouldn't ask you for the answer, I'd ask the person who employed you. Yeah, I know – this is rocket science.

    5) Do you disapprove of all political pressure or only that which you find inconvenient?

    Political pressure to eliminate evil people from positions of power and to enable good people to take their place is acceptable … to everyone.

  • Chris

    Not my questions. I doubt that your answer's are Antony's unless you are Antony.

    The board would be better served by waiting for Antony to answer Leo’s concerns before branching into something else. I’ll repeat them for the sake of continuity:

    Antony:

    1) Should materials used in State schools be controversially partisan political?

    2) Was your appointment to the Centre for Middle East and North African Studies at Macquarie University NOT political? If so, was that wrong? Were you not obviously and demonstrably appointed to be the Centre’s resident “good Jew”, as window dressing?

    3) Do you disapprove of all political pressure or only that which you find inconvenient?

  • Leo Buddha

    Continuity N 1 = Thank you Chris

    Thank you for your persistence and patience Chris.

    I too will repeat ALL the outstanding questions. I have renumbered them for the sake of clarity:

    Antony:

    The original real question was:

    1-1) What (seemingly) substantial reasons did The Department give for its decision?

    (Antony simply responded with pointers to his and others' responses to that decision.)

    The follow up questions were:

    2-1) Should materials used in State schools be controversially partisan political?

    2-2) Was your appointment to the Centre for Middle East and North African Studies at Macquarie University NOT political? If so, was that wrong?

    2-3) Were you not obviously and demonstrably appointed to be the Centre’s resident "good Jew", as window dressing?

    2-4) Do you disapprove of all political pressure or only that which you find inconvenient?

    Like Chris, I have patience. And I can answer even loaded questions, unemotionally and factually. I am sure that Antony can too, if he wants to. Antony either does not have the time or chooses to not answer.

  • Addamo

    "Antony either does not have the time or chooses to not answer."

    Either that or Antony is sick and tired of answering these same questions for every time an Israeli appologist, who signs up to this forum, poses them , wassuimng that he/she is the first person ever come up with these questions.

    Questions for you Chris:

    1. Do you consider factual information to be partisan becaseu it is incoveniet to Israeli appologists?

    2. Do you believe that Antony's role at the Centre for Middle East and North African Studies at Macquarie University is purely windeo dressing and that he makes no contribution to the department?

    3. D you believe that anyone who is appointed becasue they are Jewish has a responsibility to uphold the pro Israeli political agenda?

    4. Do you think that using political pressure to stifle debate is approprioate?

  • Chris

    It appears that Antony has not been given the opportunity because others have some issue or other having little to do with Antony.

    For his benefit I too will repeat the outstanding questions as renumbered for the sake of clarity:

    Antony:

    The original real question was:

    1-1) What (seemingly) substantial reasons did The Department give for its decision?

    (Antony simply responded with pointers to his and others’ responses to that decision.)

    The follow up questions were:

    2-1) Should materials used in State schools be controversially partisan political?

    2-2) Was your appointment to the Centre for Middle East and North African Studies at Macquarie University NOT political? If so, was that wrong?

    2-3) Were you not obviously and demonstrably appointed to be the Centre’s resident “good Jew”, as window dressing?

    2-4) Do you disapprove of all political pressure or only that which you find inconvenient?

  • Addamo

    It appears that you are indeed an idiot with an obsession.

    Leo Buddah:

    1. Do you consider factual information to be partisan becaseu it is incoveniet to Israeli appologists?

    2. Do you believe that Antony’s role at the Centre for Middle East and North African Studies at Macquarie University is purely windeo dressing and that he makes no contribution to the department?

    3. D you believe that anyone who is appointed becasue they are Jewish has a responsibility to uphold the pro Israeli political agenda?

    4. Do you think that using political pressure to stifle debate is approprioate?

  • Chris

    It still appears that Antony has not been given the opportunity because others have some issue or other having little to do with Antony.

    For his benefit I will repeat the outstanding questions as renumbered for the sake of clarity:

    Antony:

    The original real question was:

    1-1) What (seemingly) substantial reasons did The Department give for its decision?

    (Antony simply responded with pointers to his and others’ responses to that decision.)

    The follow up questions were:

    2-1) Should materials used in State schools be controversially partisan political?

    2-2) Was your appointment to the Centre for Middle East and North African Studies at Macquarie University NOT political? If so, was that wrong?

    2-3) Were you not obviously and demonstrably appointed to be the Centre’s resident “good Jew”, as window dressing?

    2-4) Do you disapprove of all political pressure or only that which you find inconvenient?

  • Leo Buddha

    Back to basics,

    The original and still outstanding real question was and is:

    1-1) What (seemingly) substantial reasons did The Department give for its decision?

    (Antony simply responded with pointers to his and others’ responses to that decision.)

    Until that question is really answered my other questions obviously are just rhetorical and were implicitlty and explicitly answered with a YES in the material to which Antony pointed.

  • edward squire

    Leo Buddha Mar 17th, 2006 at 10:59 am

    Back to basics,

    The original and still outstanding real question was and is:

    1-1) What (seemingly) substantial reasons did The Department give for its decision?

    Leo,

    It appears you are not familar with the "basics" of reality. So let's get back to them. This question can only be answered by the people who make the decision, not the person about whom the decision was made. Have you done so?

  • Leo Buddha
  • Chris

    So there was no set reason for determining that it was unsuitible.

  • Leo Buddha

    Antony provided some answers under:

    Why let truth get in the way?

    Published by Antony Loewenstein March 17th, 2006 in Israel

    Thnak you Antony.