SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
media
Honoring Michael Parenti, Who Kept the Torch of the US Left Lit and Sharply Afire
Parenti stands out as uniquely courageous and unapologetic in directly confronting capitalism, US imperialism, and the manifold corruptions and inequities of society’s powerful.
Feb 28, 2026
Michael Parenti, who died on January 24 at the age of 92, blazed a long, brave, and often lonely trail through American political thought and radical politics. The author of more than 25 books, including such many-editioned classics as Democracy for the Few and Inventing Reality, Parenti leaves behind a rich and vital legacy of intellectual and moral clarity.
Arguably one of the most influential thinkers and writers on the US left this past half-century, Parenti stands out as uniquely courageous and unapologetic in directly confronting capitalism, US imperialism, and the manifold corruptions and inequities of society’s powerful. Where many liberal writers bemoaned corporations and the rich, Parenti educated generations (including this writer) about capitalism’s fundamental contradictions and intrinsic forces of inequality, harm, and destruction.
Parenti grew up in a working-class family in East Harlem in New York City, and worked for a few years after high school before obtaining his BA from City College of New York. From there, he gained a teaching fellowship at Brown University, where he earned his MA, then earned his PhD at Yale University. Parenti taught at a slew of different colleges and universities across the United States, eventually becoming an itinerant lecturer and writer after he was widely blackballed from academia for his ideology and activism.
In 1970, Dr. Parenti’s career as a professor was derailed when he was clubbed by police while protesting the shootings of students at Kent State, leading to his ouster from the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. He soon resettled at the University of Vermont, which then booted him when he was convicted for the protest altercation. Parenti became part of the Green Mountain State’s upwelling of political ferment. He ran for Congress in 1974 on the Liberty Union ticket, netting third place with 7% of the vote, while his then-friend Bernie Sanders garnered 4% in his run for the US Senate.
At a time when the most radical US political rebellions are sadly emanating from the fascist, bigoted MAGA right, what we so urgently need is a fierce, disciplined, unapologetic, nonviolent uprising from the progressive left.
While growing up in this fertile milieu of 1970s Vermont, I met Parenti through our interconnected communities and chatted with him many times over the years. Alongside his brilliance and courage, Parenti was warm, amiable, engaging, and funny. He had a visceral humanity and compassion to him that embedded both his interactions and his writing.
“What the military-industrialists fail to see is that the pyramid of power and profit they build rests on a crumbling base,” he wrote in a 1981 essay in The Progressive, one of several pieces he contributed to this magazine between 1975-1992. “Ultimately, no political-economic order can remain secure by victimizing its own people. Sooner or later, this truth returns to haunt the mighty.”
One trademark Parenti talent was his ability to pierce through clotted, contorted mainstream narratives with sharp original insights. A favorite of mine comes from a speech he gave before a packed auditorium at the University of Colorado in 1986:
The Third World is not poor. You don’t go to poor countries to make money... Most countries are rich. The Philippines are rich. Brazil is rich. Mexico is rich. Chile is rich. Only the people are poor. There’s billions to be made there, to be carved out and to be taken. There’s been billions, for 400 years, the capitalist European and North American powers have carved out and taken the timber, the flax, the hemp, the cocoa, the rum, the tin, the copper, the iron, the rubber, the bauxite, the slaves, and the cheap labor... These countries are not underdeveloped, they are over-exploited.
The crowd erupted in thunderous applause, as often happened at a Parenti speech.
Many of Parenti’s works, while maligned or dismissed by mainstream critics, have proven to be startlingly prescient. Democracy for the Few, first published in 1974, provides a trenchant original analysis of the multi-layered relationships between economic and political power. A few short quotes from the book bear chillingly close resemblance to the intertwinement of money and politics today:
The close relationship between politics and economics is neither neutral nor coincidental. Large governments evolve through history in order to protect large accumulations of property and wealth.
It is ironic that people of modest means sometimes become conservative out of a scarcity fear bred by the very capitalist system they support.
In almost every enterprise, government has provided business with opportunities for private gain at public expense. Government nurtures private capital accumulation through a process of subsidies, supports, and deficit spending and an increasingly inequitable tax system.
In his 1986 book, Inventing Reality, Parenti delivers a searing and wise indictment of corporate mass media that goes beyond standard critiques. While liberal critics of corporate media may decry big business control of journalism, Parenti’s examination dug deeper into core fundamentals of capitalism: “As with any business, the mass media’s first obligation is to make money for their owners,” he wrote, and these wealthy owners “determine which person, which facts, which version of the facts, and which ideas shall reach the public.”
As a young, budding journalist when Inventing Reality was first published, I learned a great deal, not only about who owns and controls the media, but also about the many hidden biases embedded in US journalism stemming largely from that economic power. As Parenti often pointed out, mainstream media discourse typically spans a narrow political continuum from liberal to conservative, rarely including any radical or progressive perspectives, particularly ones like Parenti’s which confront capitalism directly.
Ironically, following Michael’s passing, the New York Times ran a lengthy obituary piece that illustrated many of these biases, highlighting mainstream criticisms of Parenti’s “uncompromising” stances and terming his speaking style as “feisty and animated.” Displaying some of the biases Parenti long critiqued, Times staffer Trip Gabriel wrote, “Parenti seemed to view every American domestic challenge as the fault of capitalism and every US foreign venture as an act of militarized imperialism.” As if such an assessment is somehow objectively inaccurate.
Parenti’s passing is especially notable and poignant due to the dearth of radical political thought and leadership in the United States today. While he was often outcast and blackballed throughout much of academia, he was of a now-gone generation on the left that, at least to some extent, retained its radicalism and Marxist analysis. In this respect, Parenti and his ideas came from the Old Left of the 1930s to the 1960s, rather than the New Left movement of the 1960s and 1970s, which often diverged from Marxism and communism.
In today’s chaotic and confusing political landscape, we have left-progressive figures of varying prominence and radicalism, but very few who, like Parenti, directly confront capitalism and its structural, systematic destruction, rather than simply chronicling the many anecdotes of its impacts.
Parenti’s legacies are many and important. Through his books and countless lectures, he inspired generations of progressive-left activists and thinkers. He kept the American left’s torch, so often flickering and adrift, lit and sharply afire.
But there’s another reason I think it’s time for many to discover or revisit Michael Parenti’s prolific oeuvre. At a time when the most radical US political rebellions are sadly emanating from the fascist, bigoted MAGA right, what we so urgently need is a fierce, disciplined, unapologetic, nonviolent uprising from the progressive left.
Parenti’s old one-time friend, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), called for political revolution when he ran for president in 2016 and 2020. We hear less of that call to action today, when so much of our political energy and time are consumed by our desperate defenses against President Donald Trump’s hideous autocracy.
Amid the daily chaos and maelstroms over Trump’s unrelenting assaults on immigrants, human, and civil rights, our environment, and this nation’s withering democracy, the “Overton window” of the politically possible has been squelched nearly shut. These days, even many progressives have been at least temporarily reduced to anti-Trumpers and, to some degree, to the dreary-grim “Blue no matter who” camp. We could really use the bold radicalism of Michael Parenti now, with his piercing ferocity and that iconic moral and intellectual clarity.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Wall of Carnage: Gazans, Olive Trees, and Mosques
Pro-Israel advocates complain that younger people are being exposed to too many violent images of the Gaza genocide, but in fact the Western press underreports the death and destruction caused by the war.
Feb 25, 2026
In the small town of Berkeley Springs, West Virginia where I live, during Israel’s destruction of the Gaza Strip, a Democratic Party activist hung a flag of the state of Israel across the way from the only grocery town in town—so that almost every member of the community would see it.
As if to say—“we stand with the genocide.”
But it’s not just small town Democrats who are clueless.
Take DC Democrats, like former Obama speechwriter Sarah Hurwitz.
Was any of this destruction of mosques and olive trees reported in the mainstream news in the United States? Not that we could find. (If you find it, we’d like to know.)
Speaking before the Jewish Federations of North America annual meeting in Washington, DC in November 2025, Hurwitz waved her rhetorical Israeli flag in a speech that went viral on the internet, but pretty much stayed out of the mainstream media.
“So you have TikTok just smashing our young people’s brains all day long with video of carnage in Gaza,” Hurwitz said. “And this is why so many of us can’t have a sane conversation with younger Jews because anything that we try to say to them, they are hearing it through this wall of carnage. So I want to give data and information and facts and arguments and they are just seeing in their minds carnage and I sound obscene.”
Yes you do, Sarah. You sound obscene. But since this is a TikTok free zone, let’s go to the “data and information and facts” you say you want.
On January 29, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz ran an article under the headline "IDF Accepts Gaza Health Ministry Death Toll of Over 71,000 Palestinians Killed During the War."
“The Ministry’s tally includes only those killed directly by Israeli military fire in its tracking, not people who died of starvation or from diseases exacerbated by the war,” the paper reported.
This after years of Israeli officials saying the Hamas figures were unreliable, untrustworthy, and unbelievable.
And former British Labor Party leader and current Independent Member of Parliament Jeremy Corbyn pointed out the obvious Sarah—“There’s only one reason the IDF accepts this figure—they know the real number is much, much higher. Palestinians tried to tell the world. Shame on all those who discredited them. By hiding the genocide, you fueled the genocide.”
As we have pointed out repeatedly over the last year in the Capitol Hill Citizen, Israel has killed hundreds of thousands of Palestinians in Gaza since October 7, not the tens of thousands as now both Hamas and the IDF say. (See for example, "The Vast Gaza Death Undercount: Hamas Says 66,000, It’s More Like 600,000" by Ralph Nader, November/December 2025 Capitol Hill Citizen, page 30.)
As we go to press, Zeteo is publishing a three-part investigation by California surgeon Dr. Feroze Sidhwa titled "The Truth About Gaza’s Dead."
On direct deaths from violence, Sidhwa writes that “the number is likely between 120,000 and 215,000, representing 1 out of every 10 to 18 people in Gaza, but may be significantly higher. It is extremely unlikely that fewer than 120,000 Palestinians have been killed, and it is unlikely that more than 437,000 have been killed directly by US-Israeli military violence.”
Sidhwa is working on a final paper that looks at indirect deaths—deaths from unsanitary conditions, disease, lack of medical facilities, malnutrition, starvation, and exposure to the elements. Epidemiologists often use a ratio of 4 indirect deaths for every 1 direct death in such conflicts, which would place the toll much higher than current reported figures—somewhere in the neighborhood of the more than 600,000 Nader has estimated.
Nor will you see reporting on the fact that Israel has destroyed the vast majority of mosques and olive trees in Gaza.
According to Fayyad Fayyad, the head of the Palestinian Olive Council, Gaza’s olive sector is “almost completely destroyed.”
“There is no olive season this year,” Fayyad told Drop Site News. “We estimate that nearly 1 million of Gaza’s 1.1 million olive trees have been destroyed.”
In 2022, Gaza produced about 50,000 tons of olives. This year, Fayyad said, the total will be well under a thousand.
“The destruction is deliberate,” Fayyad told Drop Site. “Israel aims to eliminate the agricultural sector, including olives. What remains are scattered trees—not groves, not production.”
“The olive trees have become firewood now,” 75-year-old farmer Hajj Suleiman AbdelNabi told Drop Site. “I feel pain with every cut—not just for the loss, but because these trees are life itself. For Palestinians, they are a symbol of steadfastness. When they die, it feels like another disaster.”
According to the Gaza Ministry of Endowments, Israel has also destroyed more than 800 mosques in Gaza—or 79% of the mosques in the Gaza Strip—and completely demolished three churches. More than 150 mosques have been partially damaged.
“The targeting of mosques and places of worship by the occupation forces is a clear violation of all sanctities, international law, and human rights law,” the ministry said. The Israeli army has also targeted 32 of Gaza’s 60 cemeteries, completely destroying 14 and partially damaging 18, the ministry said.
Was any of this destruction of mosques and olive trees reported in the mainstream news in the United States? Not that we could find. (If you find it, we’d like to know.)
And what happens when a Westerner tries to bring this to light?
Let’s take the case of Francesca Albanese, the United Nations special rapporteur for Palestine.
Last year, the Trump administration placed Albanese on the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) list—usually reserved for terrorists and money launderers—six days after the release of her report that documents US corporate support for Israel’s genocide in Gaza.
It was this report—fingering as it does the powerful American corporations and institutions—including Palantir Technologies, Lockheed Martin, Alphabet Inc., Amazon, International Business Machines Corporation, Caterpillar, Microsoft Corporation, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology—that led to the Trump administration sanctioning Albanese.
“Far too many corporate entities have profited from Israel’s economy of illegal occupation, apartheid, and now, genocide,” Albanese wrote in the report. “The complicity exposed by this report is just the tip of the iceberg—ending it will not happen without holding the private sector accountable, including its executives. International law recognizes varying degrees of responsibility—each requiring scrutiny and accountability, particularly in this case, where a people’s self-determination and very existence are at stake. This is a necessary step to end the genocide and dismantle the global system that has allowed it.”
The independent journalist Chris Hedges reports that as a result of the sanctions, Francesca’s assets in the US have been frozen, including her bank account and her US apartment.
“The sanctions cut her off from the international banking system, including blocking her use of credit cards,” Hedges writes. “Her private medical insurance refuses to reimburse her medical expenses. Hotel rooms booked under her name have been cancelled. She can only operate using cash or by borrowing a bank card.”
“Institutions, including US universities, human rights groups, professors, and NGOs, that once cooperated with Francesca, have severed ties, fearful of penalties established for any US citizen who collaborates with her. She and her family receive frequent death threats. Israel and the US have mounted a campaign to get her removed from her UN post.”
“Francesca is proof that when you stand steadfastly with the oppressed, you will be treated like the oppressed.”
“She is unsure if her book—When the World Sleeps: Stories, Words, and Wounds of Palestine—which has been translated into English and is expected to be released in April, will be distributed in the US.”
Sarah Hurwitz’s obscene narrative?
Or Francesca Albanese’s justice narrative?
You choose, America.
This article ran in the February/March 2026 print edition of the Capitol Hill Citizen. To get a copy of the print newspaper, go to capitolhillcitizen.com)
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Tariff Ruling Shows the Roberts Court Is More Pro-Corporate Than Pro-Trump
The mainstream media, and even much of the progressive media, is misinterpreting the tariff decision as demonstrating the Roberts Court's independence and judicial neutrality. Instead, it demonstrates the court's true masters.
Feb 24, 2026
The US Supreme Court's rejection of President Donald Trump's singular policy on tariffs is a reason for some celebration. During the past year, using the so-called "shadow docket," the Roberts Court had ruled in Trump's favor on an emergency basis 24 out of 28 times.
But the mainstream media, and even much of the progressive media, is misinterpreting the tariff decision as demonstrating the Roberts Court's independence and judicial neutrality.
For example, the New York Times lead article by its chief legal correspondent Adam Lipnick was headlined, "The Supreme Court's Declaration of Independence," and the article argued that SCOTUS's decision "amounted to a declaration of independence." One progressive blogger wrote, "It would be nice—and, in political terms, smart—if the left changes its tune about Roberts in the wake of his courageous stand." An article in the generally liberal Atlantic magazine was headlined, "The Supreme Court Isn't a Rubber Stamp."
But the Roberts Court is not independent. Rather, when there's a conflict between big corporations and Trump, it will side with the corporations.
Most of the media is getting the meaning of the tariffs case wrong.
The plaintiffs challenging the tariffs were represented by the New Civil Liberties Alliance funded by billionaire Charles Koch and former Federalist Society chief Leonard Leo who selected the right-wing Justices. Even The Chamber of Commerce filed an amicus brief opposing the Trump tariffs and asking the Roberts Court to overturn them.
In most cases that don't threaten corporate interests, the Roberts Court sides with Trump. However, as with the tariff decisions, in cases soon to be decided on whether Trump can fire a Federal Reserve governor without cause—which threatens business interests—oral arguments indicate they will probably side with the business interests and rule that the Fed is a special case and the president cannot fire a Fed governor without cause. But they will likely bend themselves into pretzels to hold that Trump can fire without cause the heads of most other agencies like the Consumer Protection Financial Bureau and the National Labor Relations Board, which regulate business and which corporate interests want kneecapped..
Most of the media is getting the meaning of the tariffs case wrong. It does not show that the Roberts Court is independent. Rather, it shows that the Roberts Court is pro-corporate.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular