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.

What Iranian bloggers are saying about the US election

My following article appears in today’s edition of Crikey:

Antony Loewenstein, author of The Blogging Revolution, writes:

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was in New York last week and conducted a number of fascinating interviews that confirmed his chameleon nature. He told Democracy Now! — after expressing typical bigotry against homosexuals — that his country would accept a two-state solution between Israel and the Palestinians (despite the impossibility of now achieving this due to Israel’s colonial project).

The Guardian has reported this but few others. The Western media apparently didn’t think it was appropriate to mention this major shift in policy. The “new Hitler” is a far more necessary illusion.

It was just the latest example of Iran being the convenient punching bag in this US election season. Republican Vice-Presidential candidate Sarah Palin has already said that Washington shouldn’t second-guess Israel if it wants to strike Iran.

Iran has become one of the leading foreign policies issues during the presidential election, but nuance has been completely lost behind bombastic rhetoric against Iran’s supposed threat. But what do Iranians themselves think about this? Blogs are a perfect way to gauge their mood.

Most appear to favour Barack Obama — due to the presumption that he’s less likely to launch military strikes — but both major candidates are faulted for issuing predictable and mis-guided talking points against Iran.

The blogosphere exploded after last week’s first presidential debate between John McCain and Barack Obama. Both men inaccurately called the Iranian Revolutionary Guards the Republican Guards and moderator Jim Lehrer failed to correct them.

Blogger Samsam1111 in Iranian.com wrote:

The old dude candidate while bragging about his immense foreign affairs expertise calls the regime Revolutionary Guards as Republican Guards. Hello! This is not Eye-raq, pal.

Other bloggers lamented the fact that Iran was the designated enemy and both candidates called her a real threat. Roznameh Negar No (which means New Reporter) argued: “The debate was not a very exciting one and it seems that insulting Iran is an a la mode story.”

But many Iranian bloggers were upset with Ahmadinejad’s claims in New York of respectable human rights in his country. Mojtaba Saminejad, a former jailed blogger who has been in prison for more than 20 months because of his writings, wrote:

Maybe Ahmadinejad is talking about another country … The President says that there are no political prisoners in Iran, but that there are many political prisoners in the USA. Denying this reality of all these political prisoners in Iran can only be a sign that the Islamic Republic knows it is violating human rights. If not, there is no need to talk about the USA when questions are being asked about Iran.

Despite the current Western rhetoric against Ahmadinejad — and I discovered during my visit in Iran last year that the local print and online media, despite the censorship, featured robust criticism of the leadership — blogger Hoder points out that former President Mohammad Khatami was equally inflammatory against the Jewish state.

But as the blogger notes:

If any of these had been said after Iran officially started its nuclear programme, they would have easily become strong points of anti-Iran propaganda, the same way Ahmadinejad’s words have become. Especially given how easily they can totally mistranslates and misquote anyone, if they want to.

And that is the key point. Robert Fisk explains that the Western powers actively need a “crackpot” running Iran. “We wanted Iran to be bad”, he said.

no comments – be the first ↪