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.

Getting orders from the top

The US press love quoting “US officials“. One would think that since these “US officials” lie as part of their job, a little scepticism is in order. For some, however, the addiction is simply too tough to beat:

U.S. intelligence officials, already focused on Iran’s potential for building nuclear weapons, are struggling to solve a more immediate mystery: the murky relationship between the new Tehran leadership and the contingent of Al Qaeda leaders residing in the country.

Some officials, citing evidence from highly classified satellite feeds and electronic eavesdropping, believe the Iranian regime is playing host to much of Al Qaeda’s remaining brain trust and allowing the senior operatives freedom to communicate and help plan the terrorist network’s operations.

These same “US officials” are part of an administration that is threatening Iran. Perhaps the journalist and editor would like to keep this in mind. Besides, who really believes these “US officials” anymore?

15 comments ↪
  • Addamo

    US Officials has become synonimous with liars hiding behind their positions in office. Of course the fact that these pictures are "cassified" means no one will be able to determine if there is any truth to these assertions.

    And that's the way they like it.

  • John Ryan

    My My where have I heard that refair before,thats right Iraq

  • Stev

    It's amazing just how much difference there is in perceived meaning between 'The official word from the US government' and 'The word from US government officials'. In a practical sense they both mean exactly the same thing. Nothing is leaked through 'officials' that is not intended to be heard, but the former seems like the official party line, delivered from on high, where the latter seems more like we're getting the inside scoop from a person (rather than an entity) in the know.

  • smiths

    i am sure you have read ant, the recent piece by fisk where he analyses the use of the terms and the repetative nature of it,
    it is bizarre though,
    the newspapers are proven liars but everyone still more or less believes them,
    and the government are proven liars and everyone more or less believes them,

    for years i pondered long and hard, the unthinkable way that the germans became under hitler, the efficient killing machine trhat they did, i just couldnt understand how it had happened,
    but i dont ponder it anymore,
    all the answers are playing out in front of my very own eyes

  • smiths

    heres an interesting one on 'unnamed sources'
    http://www.cjr.org/issues/2005/6/baker.asp

  • boredinHK

    smiths,

    wondering about how people become fascists – perhaps this link will give readers a few ideas?

    href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1717676,00.html">

  • boredinHK

    Maybe this works better?

  • Edward Squire

    boredinHK Mar 22nd, 2006 at 3:01 pm

    wondering about how people become fascists – perhaps this link will give readers a few ideas?
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,171767…

    Ummm – a bit too much pop-psychology for my tastes. While Japanese novella-writers and imaginative ex-communists certainly have their place and make for a much richer and interesting world, I wouldn't call their products scientific research. And it only encourages the Freudians to crawl out of the woodwork. One finds it everywhere, but, for example, it's not difficult to figure out the so-called symbolism of the so-called subconscious desires here:

    "The great danger to Israel would be if al-Qaeda elements that are today in Iraq and are already penetrating Jordan and Syria, would be able to marry up with a Hamas regime in the West Bank," says former Israeli government adviser, Dore Gold. Source

  • boredinHK

    Oh, I don't know Edward ….

    It's in the Graundiad so it must be true ?

  • Chris

    Besides, who really believes these “US officials” anymore?

    *********************************************

    And which country's officials do you believe?

  • Back when I was in journalism school in the early 1980s, we were taught that the Fourth Estate functioned in an adversarial role, holding government to account for their actions.

    During the Reagan era, the White House handling of the Washington press corps changed dramatically. Where White House press conferences once were comprised of randomly selected journalists asking pointed questions, the Reagan Administration began to organise press conferences such that those journos who asked tough questions were simply not called upon. If a newsie didn't play ball, they never got a story out of the White House. Journos caved in to pressure for favourable coverage of the White House.

    The trust that the public once had for Washington journalists and their use of unnamed 'White House' or 'US Government' sources for news items was irrevocably broken in the Reagan Administration's (quite successful) quest to be unaccountable.

    You can be assured that if a newsie quotes 'American officials' as a source, that the story is either incomplete or bent to favour the US government.

  • edward squire

    boredinHK Mar 22nd, 2006 at 10:23 pm

    Oh, I don’t know Edward ….

    It’s in the Graundiad so it must be true ?

    What is said, not who said it or where they said it is more important.

  • Chris

    What is said has little relevance if who said it has no credibility and the paper has no credibility.

    What is said has no relevance if it is a lie.

  • Addamo

    What is said has little relevance if who said it has no credibility and the paper has no credibility.

    Wrong. Credibility is a matter of opinion. Some people carry credibility with one group while completely lacking it with others. Facts on the other hand, are a constant.

    What is said has no relevance if it is a lie.

    By jo I think he's got it.

  • Chris

    But you apparently didn't get it.

    If the paper and person has no credibility, as in they've been caught, several times, making things up, then their statements have no relevancy, no matter what your opinion is.