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.

There is only one side to be on

It’s time for journalists across the Western world to realise that reactionary governments do not believe in a free and open press:

The International Federation of Journalists said today it is alarmed by mounting attacks on media and whistleblowers by Western governments trying to hide potentially illegal or damaging actions and statements.

“It is unacceptable to see countries like the United States, Great Britain, and Denmark trying to intimidate and stifle independent journalism,” said Aidan White, IFJ General Secretary, “while others, like Germany and the Netherlands, are caught out snooping on media and tapping the telephones of journalists.”

The IFJ says that a global crackdown on investigative journalism led by countries that are supposed to be models of democracy is repressive and is depriving people of their basic rights – “most importantly the right of citizens to know what their government is doing.”  

As I’ve written before, journalists have a responsibility to challenge, provoke and reveal government “secrets”, use of excessive power and potential illegality. During the fictitious “war on terror” – not unlike the former “threat” from the Soviet Union – patriotism or “taking sides” has no place in the pursuit of truth. In fact, the best reporters relish the challenge of holding government or institutions to account, no matter the supposed cost.

  • Captain

    The war on terror fictitious, just like the former "threat" from the soviet union?

    Thanks for the laugh Ant. I know you write books (yet to be published) but do you read?

  • orang

    captain, you collected your check yet? I can give you a reference.

    To whom it may concern,

    captain has diligently spread the word of the freedom loving coalition of the willing and the peace loving state of Israel.

    Please pay him his dues.

    Yours faithfully,

  • Captain

    Funny, the old Zionist cheque claim: when you have no argument left accuse someone of being a paid agent. You may know what orang means but clearly not ad hominem.

    Don't you think its funny that Ant things that Soviet Communism was fictitious? I mean you can't get much more ignorant than that.

  • Gustov_deleft


    You've proven on other sites exactly the type of sick perverse individual that you are. Your commentary will from this day forward be viewed in that context. Do the right thing Captain, and just disappear….You're finished.

  • Anon

    What a stupid idiot Captain is. If he in fact did read he would learn that the "threat" from the USSR was indeed magnified and blown out of proportion. Captain, in the interest of not making a fool of yourself just shut up.

  • ed squire

    Gustov_deleft Jul 8th, 2006 at 8:33 pm


    You’ve proven on other sites exactly the type of sick perverse individual that you are.

    Ugh. Captain, you really are pure evil.

  • Addamo

    Take it easy on Captain people. These are concepts beyond Captain's limited mental abilities.

    Simply put, the assault on the very notion of an independent press is championed by those who knwo that what the government is doing (both deomestically and abroad) cannot stand the light of day, so reporters must not report or the word will get out.

    What is too shameful to report becomes a matter of national security.

  • orang

    Meanwhile, back to killing Pali's,

    More than 30 Palestinian civilians and militants were killed, and dozens more injured, during the Israeli incursion. An Israeli solider was killed during the clashes.

    "An Israeli soldier was killed…."… Israel..


  • orang

    In World Cup speak;

    Israel 30, Palis 1 (own Goal)

  • Aaron Lane

    "Taking sides" has no part in journalism? This seems to me to be a highly dubious proposition, and one which Antony himself does not remotely adhere too (no one could honestly say that he does not see Israel as almost wholly to blame for the conflict in that region.)It seems to me that what Antony disagrees with is not journalists taking sides, but journalists taking sides different to his own.

  • Aaron Lane

    I just noticed the title of the post–makes Antony's views on taking sides even more amusing.

  • Addamo

    I just noticed the title of the post–makes Antony’s views on taking sides even more amusing.

    That's incredibly Lame Aaron.

    Antony has never professed to being the media. He is but one voice and he makes no bones about it. In his defense, Ant has not become a glorified stenographer for goverments, which is pretty much what the MSM have become.

    Furthermore, Antony has never advocated consorship, though his critics seem to believe it's a fabulous idea.

  • ed squire

    Aaron Lane Jul 10th, 2006 at 1:49 am

    “Taking sides” has no part in journalism? This seems to me to be a highly dubious proposition, and one which Antony himself does not remotely adhere too

    The distinction is an all-too subtle one for some people. It goes like this. There are people who take sides before investigating the facts. They are not so much interested in finding out whatever happens to be the case as they are in finding ways of reiterating their presuppositions. Then there are people who take sides after investigating the facts. Thus one can maintain journalistic integrity and take sides too. It's actually pretty elemental when you think about it (or more than 5 seconds).

  • Addamo

    Someone posted to the Seymour Hersh thread a comment using my ID, to the effect of advocating that the US bomb Israel instead of Iran. I did not post this message. I am totally opposed to the bombing of any country by any other, and would completely condemn such an act.

    I have been away from an internet connection since Sunday, so either someone with eh same ID as I posted that message or is misrepresenting me.

  • viva peace


    Whence does this "responsibility" spring? From what source/authority? And who demands this "responsibility?"

    Your self-apponited moral narcissism is just priceless!

  • viva peace

    ed squire

    What a pompous ponce you are. You are no better than AL in your pathological confirmation biases.

  • Addamo


    Is there a point to your comments or are you just on one of your manufactured outrage type benders?

    When I last chekced, this was AL's blog, which is all the authority he needs. As for "pathological confirmation biases", do you really think it's time you had those glass walls on your home reinforced?

  • smiths

    personally i think that captain and viva's motives are obvious,
    they always try to move the discussion into pointless arguement territory,
    they consume us because we go off searching for factual information to discredit their lies and propaganda, we post it, they ignore it and we have lost out,
    they quote all the staple right wing papers and sources,
    all the outlets owned by american neocon zionists like richard perle,

    to me it seems a bit too well scripted

  • Comical_Ali

    you mean monomania?

  • ed squire

    viva peace Jul 10th, 2006 at 12:50 pm

    ed squire

    What a pompous ponce you are. You are no better than AL …

    Are you complimenting me or Antony?

  • Addamo


    I think you have nailed on the head. In the face of an incovenient post, the stretergy is all to obvious:

    By introducing charges of anti-semitism, Holocaust denial, denial of Israel's right to exist, supporting terrorists/Saddam Hussein, even when it is completely unsubstantiated or irrelevant, it guarantees outright indignition and denial etc. Pretty soon, the thread has been derailed and presto, mission accomplished. Teh beauty of this technique is that it doesn't need to be well scripted to be effective.

  • ed squire

    Addamo Jul 11th, 2006 at 8:08 am

    By introducing charges of anti-semitism, Holocaust denial, denial of Israel’s right to exist, supporting terrorists/Saddam Hussein, even when it is completely unsubstantiated or irrelevant, it guarantees outright indignition and denial etc.

    …and don't forget: all topped off with a nice big fat dollop of racism.

  • Comical_Ali

    I just noticed the title of the post–makes Antony’s views on taking sides even more amusing.


    During the fictitious “war on terror” – not unlike the former “threat” from the Soviet Union –

    Another reason why you shouldn't be taken seriously and as a refugee from the former USSR (who wittnessed Soviet tyranny first hand and understood that it was a threat to the world) I can really appreciate the notion of not taking you seriously at all.

  • Comical_Ali

    By introducing charges of anti-semitism,

    those dirty money grubbing yids and their jooowish monomania. Where do they get their centre of the universe, money grubbing traits from? Their mythical King David? Or the story of Purim – which explains their blood thristiness?

  • Addamo

    those dirty money grubbing yids and their jooowish monomania. Where do they get their centre of the universe, money grubbing traits from? Their mythical King David? Or the story of Purim – which explains their blood thristiness?

    Comical, you are starting top sound like you are having an acute tick developing. Didn;t you just write something to this effect in another thread?

    But thank you Comical, for producing yet another text book example of the Zionist mania that Smiths was referring to.

  • viva peace


    I have not attacked AL personally. I merely am interested in where this alleged "responsibility" comes from?