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.

Nice try, but

Back in February, cartoonist Michael Leunig was caught in the middle of a hoax when one of his controversial cartoons was submitted to an Iranian newspaper competition seeking work about the Jewish Holocaust.

In response to the competition, a group of Israelis started their own competition – open to Jews only – and called for artwork. One of the organisers, Amitai Sandy, explained:

“We’ll show the world we can do the best, sharpest, most offensive Jew hating cartoons ever published! No Iranian will beat us on our home turf!” 

The whole enterprise was clearly tongue-in-cheek, an attempt to gross-out the Iranians. Some of the submissions are humorous, though probably in questionable taste. I recently discovered, however, that somebody had fraudulently submitted a work under my name (actually “Anthony Loewenstein.”)

This Leunig cartoon had been changed, and the Israeli flag placed in the middle of the image. In other words, the figures were goose-stepping to the Israeli flag. The website was made aware of the hoax and the image has now been removed.

It was yet another attempt at smearing me because of my criticisms of the official Middle East paradigm. Such deliberate tactics are both pathetic and counter-productive.

  • Chris

    No promotion. You seem to have confused your powers of comprehension with what actually was written. Your comprehension does not alter the written word, no matter how much you fantasize. And I am not paid to merely watch row boats, which I do on occasion. Funny how you seem to feel that one's occupation limits there knowledge. While there should be some knowledge level, which you lack, working in any nuclear field, that work itself should not limit what knowledge one gains. Your profession of ignorance regarding 'dirty' bombs is a confession of ignorance of nuclear technology.

    I do know the hazards involved in handling isotopes and contaminated material. You do not. You are a liar. I am not.

  • Addamo

    Your profession of ignorance regarding ‘dirty’ bombs is a confession of ignorance of nuclear technology.

    What is it you do again? Watch boats right? Yeah, I would have chosen that profession too if I were mentally handicapped. Must be tough watching those boats in case they try to get away.

  • Stev

    Intereting how Stev admits that he has absolutely no credentials and as little knowledge in the field. Addamo is as qualified but won’t admit his mediocrity.

    Interesting how Chris equates qualifications and credentials with knowledge. If it makes it easier for you to believe I have little knowledge in the field, then feel free to do so, but know that I do not 'admit' it, nor is it true.

    And again hypocrisy abounds. By not admitting your own lack of qualifications, you are inferring that you are qualified. But neither will you tell us what those qualifications are. Unless you come out and show us some credentials, you are just as qualified, therefore just as knowledgable, therefore just as mediocre as the rest of us (although how you equate all of those things however is beyond me)

    What's your obsession with the word 'mediocre' by the way? Here, it might help make your posts a little more interesting to read.

  • Stev

    Just trying that link again

  • Chris

    The use of the term ‘mediocre, 6 or 7 times, is neither ossesive, not does it dilute its meaning. It just seems to be annoying to you, and reviewing your previous posts, there seems to be no reason to discontinue its use based on it being annoying to you.

  • That’s all you’ve got? Damn. And I was so hoping for you to pull a Doctorate in Middle Eastern Politics out of your ass.

    a. Who said anything about obsessive?
    2. perceived meaning is subjective, as is the dilution of said meaning
    – I don’t find it annoying, I just think it’s uncreative. If you’re going to go around calling people names, at least come up with something fresh.

  • Chris

    Glad to see you do not admit your ignorance. Wouldn't want to see that kind of lapse. But what Bored stated was that he saw a lack in something and you fairly admitted that you were lacking, but in spite of not having any qualification, your observance was as good as the next fellow, and it doesn't work that way.

    Part of my work, when not doing the mundane routine inspections, is to analyze certain issues and project planning based on those scenerios. There is good reason that I feel I might be better qualified to comment.

    Why mediocre? Don't you like the word? Doesn't it describe certain trolls here?

  • Stev

    As long as we're speaking on behalf of Bored, I'm fairly sure he's not referring to those kinds of extreme and weakly construed qualifications. After all, I'm in management, so I do exactly the same thing as you (ie analyse issues and plan projects to resolve those issues). Somehow I don't think Bored was talking about those kinds of qualifications. The kinds of qualifications Bored seems to be referring to are those that neither of us have.

    Unless you have some credentials hidden up your sleeve that, for some unknown reason, you refuse to reveal. Which is not completely impossible, you seem to have a habit of alluding to an ace in the hole which you refuse to play even when you're down to your last chip.

    So given that those aspects of our careers are not so dissimilar, perhaps you would like to have another shot at why you're so much more qualified than me to discuss these issues?

    I have no problem with the word, but like any word it tends to lose its meaning when it's used over and over again.

  • Chris


    Mar 21st, 2006 at 9:38 am

    What’s your obsession with the word ‘mediocre’ by the way?


    You should reread your posts before questioning what you, yourself, said.

    I believe the moderator has mentioned to you not to call people names, creatively or otherwise. I suggest you heed his request.

  • Stev

    You're right, I should. But I stand by points 2 and -.

    'The moderator'? Do you mean Ant? Are you trying to sound obsequious? I don't believe Ant has mentioned anything specifically to me about calling people names as I've not called people names. But I abide by the requests that have been directed to all here, namely civility. I don't endorse calling people names. All I said was 'if you're going to call people names' (which clearly you are) at least be creative about it so we can get some entertainment out of it.

  • Chris

    As something subjective can not be called factual, perceived is the proper usage. That it is not creative enough for you is not something that anyone need be worried about.

  • Are you claiming that meaning is not subjective? Or that using a word over and over in no way dilutes its meaning? Or is it just 'mediocre' that's immune to dilution of meaning? What exactly are you claiming here?

    It's not just that it's not creative enough for me, it's not at all creative. In no way can using the same word over and over again be construed as creative. But hey, if you don't value creativity that's cool with me. Each to their own I say.

  • Chris

    I think it is your values which are not valued.

  • Addamo

    I think it is your values which are not valued.

    According to whom Chris? You assumign some position of authirity again? What ever leads you to believe that you speak for others?

  • Well said Addamo.

    Chris, if everyone disagrees with me and nobody here (or in the world – it's hard to tell just what group you're claiming to speak for) values creativity in the least, then hey – that's fine with me. I value what I value and, quite frankly, don't give a fuck what other people make of my values. Just as I don't give a fuck if you don't value creativity.

    That said, my values are valued. Just as your values are valued. There are enough people in the world that at least some of the values that any single person has are valued by somebody else.

    But you should know that your response – reading my querying of what you value, and responding by making a blanket claim that basically amounts to 'no one cares what you think' is bordering on pathological. I doubt very much you're going to read that and think 'you know, you're right' and look at addressing your issues, but I had to say it anyway.

  • Chris

    And it is clear that no one here "gives a fuck" what you think. Happy? By the way, your values are not valued.