In the fractured intellectual landscape of the twenty-first century, Richard Kradin’s “Why Progressives Want to Destroy Christianity—but Spare Islam” stands as a cultural artefact of civilizational anxiety. Published via Blaze Media, Kradin’s thesis constructs a narrative battlefield where a beleaguered “Judeo-Christian” West confronts an alliance of secular progressives and radical Islamists. His argument operates within what Paul Ricoeur, the French philosopher, termed a “hermeneutic of suspicion,” interpreting progressive movements as masking a destructive, neo-Marxist agenda.
This review employs an alternative approach: a “hermeneutic of solidarity.” By synthesizing insights from history, theology, and comparative religion, we demonstrate that the perceived antagonism between Progressivism, Christianity, and Islam largely constitutes a construct of political polarization. The central questions demand engagement: Is progressive critique of Christianity destruction or purification? Is progressive defence of Islam cynical alliance or consistent pluralistic ethics? Through systematic analysis, we argue that deeper examination reveals profound consonance—shared ethical DNA rooted in the Abrahamic tradition—offering pathways to peace and justice.
Kradin posits that Western civilization rests upon a “Judeo-Christian ethic” credited with individual liberty, rule of law, and limited government. Against this, he identifies “Progressivism” as a metaphysical rival—a “secular humanist civic religion” driven by “misotheistic” (God-hating) Marxist ideology. His central observation: progressives ruthlessly deconstruct Christian symbols and values while protecting Islam. He frames this as a contradiction, concluding that Progressives and “Radical Islamists” share a common enemy—the Christian West—making their alliance a cynical pact of destruction.
Kradin’s first critical failure lies in collapsing “critique” into “destruction.” Rigorous historical review reveals that progressivism’s roots are deeply Christian. The Social Gospel movement, led by Walter Rauschenbusch, argued that authentic Christianity required transforming social structures to reflect the Kingdom of God, not merely individual salvation (Rauschenbusch, p.5-12). When contemporary progressives critique Christian nationalism or Church entanglement with capitalist power, they echo the biblical prophetic tradition rather than Marx.
The Hebrew prophets—Amos, Isaiah, Micah—were fierce critics of religious institutions prioritizing ritual over justice. God declares through Amos: “I hate, I despise your religious festivals… But let justice roll on like a river, righteousness like a never-failing stream” (Amos 5:21-24). What Kradin perceives as “misotheism” often constitutes hatred of idolatry—specifically, equating Divine Will with political or economic status quo. By failing to distinguish between attacking faith and challenging institutional hegemony, Kradin constructs a strawman. Progressivism seeks to liberate Christianity’s ethical core from historical accretions of colonialism and exclusion—a project of reclamation, not destruction.
The “Neo-Marxist” Strawman
Kradin identifies modern progressivism with “Neo-Marxism,” tracing it to a “1963 Marxist plan” to infiltrate cultural institutions. In contemporary conservative discourse, this term functions as a catch-all for any challenge to traditional hierarchies. However, modern progressivism is hybrid: it draws from Enlightenment Liberalism (Locke, Mill), postmodern scepticism (Foucault), Liberation Theology (Gutierrez), and Identity Politics (Crenshaw). Classical Marxism centres on materialist class struggle; contemporary progressivism emphasizes identity, recognition, and culture—sometimes at the expense of economic analysis, which orthodox Marxists critique (Harvey, p.23-45).
Kradin argues the “Left-Islamist alliance” is paradoxical because Marxism is atheistic while Islam is monotheistic, calling this “suicidal”. This lacks historical nuance. Movements of “Islamic Socialism” emerged in post-colonial Algeria, Nasser’s Egypt, and Iran, finding resonance between Marxist critique of exploitation and Islamic concepts of Zakat (alms), Riba (usury prohibition), and championing the Mustad’afin (oppressed) (Tripp, p.91-117). While orthodox Marxism and Islam disagree theologically, they share structural consonance in critiquing Western imperialism and consumerism. The “alliance” is not a conspiracy to destroy Christianity but a coalition of the global periphery resisting hegemonic power.
The “Judeo-Christian” Construct
Kradin’s defence rests on the “Judeo-Christian ethic”. Academically, this term is relatively recent. Before the mid-twentieth century, Christian theology predominantly viewed Judaism through supersessionism—the doctrine that Christianity replaced Judaism as God’s covenant people (Soulen, p.1-29). The hyphenation “Judeo-Christian” gained currency during the Cold War to construct a united monotheistic front against “Godless Communism” (Silk, p.40-62). Scholars like Arthur Cohen argue this often erases Judaism’s distinctiveness, subsuming it into Christian-dominated framework (Cohen. p.1-23).
By deploying this construct, Kradin performs political boundary-drawing: circumscribing Judaism and Christianity as “Civilizational Us” while placing Islam outside as “Civilizational Them.” This exclusion constitutes the fatal flaw in his analysis.
From phenomenological and historical perspectives, Islam belongs to the same monotheistic family. The evidence of continuity is overwhelming:
All three faiths venerate Abraham, Moses, and the Prophets. They share sacred geography and conceive history as linear and revelatory rather than cyclical (Smith, p.52-78).
Values Kradin attributes exclusively to “Judeo-Christian” tradition—life’s sanctity, rule of law, care for orphans and widows—are explicit in the Quran and Sunnah. The Quran states: “Whoever saves a life, it is as if they saved all of humanity” (5:32). Islamic jurisprudence developed sophisticated legal traditions influencing medieval European law through Andalusian transmission (Makdisi, p.1-34).
The civilization Kradin defends as “Western” was built on synthesis of Jerusalem (faith), Athens (reason), and Cordoba (Islamic preservation of knowledge). Muslim scholars like Ibn Sina and Ibn Rushd preserved Aristotelian philosophy, fueling the European Renaissance (Gutas, p.1-21).
By severing Islam from this lineage, Kradin renders the “West” artificially small and historically inaccurate. A more enlightened view acknowledges Mediterranean civilization emerged from continuous dialogue among Jewish, Christian, and Islamic traditions—what María Rosa Menocal termed convivencia in medieval Spain (Menocal, p.11-45).
Structurally, traditional Judaism and Islam are arguably closer to one another in orthopraxy—focus on law and daily practice through Halacha and Sharia—than either is to Pauline Christianity, which emphasizes faith over works (Sanders 1-24). Traditional Jewish and Islamic life both centre on comprehensive legal systems, dietary restrictions, prescribed prayer times, and ritual purity. Yet Kradin groups Judaism with Christianity against Islam, revealing his grouping is political, not theological.
Justice as Religious Obligation
Kradin argues progressive pursuit of “social justice” is secular counterfeit of Christian charity, claiming “Judeo-Christian ethic” emphasizes individual benevolence while progressivism enforces collective conformity. However, Abrahamic traditions mandate justice, not merely suggest charity.
In Hebrew, “charity” is Tzedakah, rooted in Tzedek meaning “justice” or “righteousness”—not voluntary generosity but obligatory fairness (Dorff, p.137-159). Unlike Latin caritas (charity) implying voluntary mercy, Tzedakah constitutes legal obligation. Maimonides’ eight levels culminate in helping someone achieve self-sufficiency—remarkably similar to modern progressive emphasis on systemic solutions rather than handouts (Maimonides, Mishneh Torah).
Kradin’s exclusion of Islam ignores Zakat, the obligatory alms pillar. This is not voluntary Sadaqah (charity) but obligatory wealth tax, typically 2.5%, designed to purify individuals and redistribute resources to the poor, indebted, and travellers (Quran 9:60). Zakat functions structurally to prevent wealth concentration. Islamic prohibition of Riba (usury) represents sophisticated critique of extractive capitalism. Muhammad stated: “He is not a believer whose stomach is full while the neighbour to his side goes hungry” (Bukhari 112).
When progressives argue for systemic poverty solutions—progressive taxation, social safety nets, predatory lending regulation—they stand closer to Tzedakah and Zakat’s spirit, which view poverty as structural imbalance requiring rectification, than to libertarian voluntary philanthropy.
Kradin portrays progressivism as an external virus. He ignores that American progressivism descends from the Social Gospel. Rauschenbusch argued industrial capitalism constituted “institutionalized sin,” maintaining that saving souls proved insufficient if social structures crushed bodies (Rauschenbusch, p.142-168). Progressive focus on “systemic racism” or “structural inequality” represents a secularized echo of this insight. Martin Luther King Jr.’s “Beloved Community” synthesized Christian ethics with democratic socialism, arguing the Gospel demanded economic justice alongside racial integration (King, p.181-203).
The progressive agenda of economic justice is not faith’s destruction but potential fulfillment of ethical mandates—what liberation theologians call God’s “preferential option for the poor” (Gutierrez, p.9-12).
Christian Freedom: Beyond Libertarian Autonomy
Kradin juxtaposes the “free” Christian West against “submissive” Islamic East, arguing Christianity’s emphasis on “freedom of the individual” makes it progressive’s target (Kradin). This relies on a superficial understanding of both Christian “freedom” and Islamic “submission.”
In the New Testament, freedom is not libertarian autonomy. It is freedom from sin’s bondage and freedom for serving the Good. Paul writes: “For you were called to freedom, brothers and sisters; only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for self-indulgence, but through love become slaves to one another” (Galatians 5:13). The paradox is central: true freedom is found in voluntary submission to God’s will and neighbour service. Augustine argued that unregenerate will, enslaved to disordered desires, possesses only apparent freedom; true libertas come through conformity to divine order.
Kradin interprets Islam (submission) as agency negation. Scholarly review reveals the opposite. In Islamic theology, submission to God (Tawhid) constitutes the ultimate declaration of freedom from earthly idols. By submitting only to the Creator, humans are liberated from submission to kings, dictators, markets, or ego. The concept of Ikhtiyar (free choice) is central to Islamic anthropology. The Quran explicitly states: “There is no compulsion in religion” (2:256). The concept of Khilafah (vicegerency) grants every human being dignity of being God’s representative on earth—radical affirmation of individual worth (Quran 2:30).
Ali Shariati argued that true tawhid produces revolutionary consciousness, rejecting all earthly domination as illegitimate usurpation of divine sovereignty (Shariati, p.89-112). What appears to Western eyes as “submission” functions internally as liberation theology.
The Abrahamic God Takes Sides
Kradin critiques Left’s focus on “oppressed peoples” as neo-Marxist tactics. This fails to engage the Theology of the Oppressed central to Abrahamic narrative. The God of Bible and Quran is not neutral; He takes sides.
Judaism’s foundational narrative is slave liberation from imperial power—the Exodus. God declares: “I have observed the misery of my people who are in Egypt; I have heard their cry” (Exodus 3:7). The Torah repeatedly commands: “You shall not oppress a resident alien; you know the heart of an alien, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt” (Exodus 23:9).
In Luke’s Gospel, Mary’s Magnificat proclaims: “He has brought down the powerful from their thrones, and lifted up the lowly; he has filled the hungry with good things, and sent the rich away empty” (Luke 1:52-53). Jesus inaugurates ministry reading Isaiah: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor” (Luke 4:18).
Muhammad, an orphan, explicitly challenged Meccan oligarchy exploiting the vulnerable. The Quran repeatedly emphasizes God’s concern for orphans, widows, and the economically marginalized. When Kradin derides progressive focus on “marginalized groups,” he unwittingly derides a central attribute of the Abrahamic Deity.
Kradin views “Identity Politics” as solvent dissolving Western unity. A liberatory reading suggests Identity Politics represents secularization of the biblical cry of the oppressed making suffering visible to power. When progressives defend Muslims against discrimination, they enact the biblical command to “welcome the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt” (Leviticus 19:34). Kradin’s dissonance arises because he identifies Christianity with Host Culture (the powerful), whereas progressives identify with the Guest (the minority).
Drawing on René Girard, we can analyse Kradin’s text as constructing a scapegoat (Girard 24-44). By projecting the West’s internal anxieties—moral confusion, economic instability—onto “Islam” and “Marxism,” Kradin seeks to restore cohesion through exclusion. However, the Gospel narrative undoes the scapegoat mechanism. Jesus identifies with the scapegoat—the one “crucified outside the gate” (Hebrews 13:12-13). If progressives stand with the scapegoated Muslim minority against hegemonic power, they structurally inhabit the Christological position. Kradin’s “defence” of Christianity, by relying on exclusionary scapegoating, ironically moves him closer to the position of the authorities who executed Jesus than to the Nazarene himself.
Islam as Post-Cold War Enemy
Kradin’s “Red-Green Alliance” thesis maps Cold War anxieties—infiltration, subversion—onto Muslims. Following the Soviet collapse, scholars like Edward Said and Mahmood Mamdani argue Islam replaced Communism as the West’s “Constitutive Other” (Said, p.1-28; Mamdani, p.15-62). The “Alliance” Kradin perceives is not conspiracy but Coalition of the Periphery—both progressive anti-imperialists and Muslim post-colonial subjects share structural critique of Western hegemony rooted in resistance to economic exploitation and military intervention, not hatred of Jesus.
Kradin questions why progressives view Muslims as “oppressed peoples of colour” when Islam is a religion, not race. Sociology teaches that religion can be racialized. In the post-9/11 context, “Muslim” became a racialized signifier associated with brown skin, Arab or South Asian ethnicity, and presumed terrorism threat (Garner, p.8-27). A Sikh man in a turban might be attacked in anti-“Muslim” hate crime—proof the category functions racially, not merely theologically.
Progressive defence of Muslims stems from recognizing that anti-Muslim bigotry operates through racism’s machinery. Defending a Muslim woman’s hijab is functionally parallel to defending an African American’s natural hair—both defend against systemic exclusion based on embodied identity. Kradin’s refusal to acknowledge this racial dimension blinds him to the progressive position’s moral urgency.
Gender, Sexuality, and the Paradox of Tolerance
Kradin’s most potent argument concerns perceived hypocrisy regarding LGBTQ+ rights. He asks why progressives militant about gay rights ally with traditionally conservative Islam—the “Gays for Palestine” paradox. Resolution requires understanding progressive power analysis and the “punching up” principle.
In the United States, the primary legislative threat to LGBTQ+ rights emanates from Christian Nationalism, not Islam. Muslims constitute approximately 2% of the US population with negligible institutional power to enact theocratic policy. When progressives critique Christianity while “sparing” Islam, they adhere to a proportionate response: one critiques hegemonic power shaping law while protecting minorities from violence. This is not endorsing conservative Islamic theology but strategically prioritizing threats based on actual political power.
Kradin’s argument erases Queer Muslims, framing “Islam” and “LGBTQ People” as mutually exclusive. This ignores individuals inhabiting both identities. Scholars like Scott Kugle engage in theological reconciliation work, developing Islamic sexual ethics compatible with LGBTQ+ affirmation (Kugle, p.1-45). Progressive engagement often amplifies these reform voices. Congresswoman Ilhan Omar supporting LGBTQ+ rights legislation demonstrates Muslim identity and progressive sexual ethics are not mutually exclusive.
Kradin assumes supporting multiculturalism requires accepting every practice as morally valid—moral relativism (Kradin). A sophisticated understanding distinguishes Pluralistic Coexistence from relativism. Liberal democratic society is where people with fundamentally different moral axioms coexist without violence, mediated by neutral states refraining from enforcing any particular doctrine. A progressive secularist and conservative Muslim may disagree profoundly on homosexuality’s morality, but align on the political necessity of a secular state preventing the government from enforcing either position on the populace.
From “Sparing” to Deep Pluralism
Kradin frames progressive attitude as “sparing” the enemy (Kradin). A liberatory approach proposes a shift to Deep Pluralism. When progressives defend Muslims from discrimination, they create space for genuine pluralism—adhering to democratic covenant that no citizen should be judged by co-religionists’ worst actions. This principle protects all minorities, including Christians.
In multi-faith society, a neutral state constitutes the only guarantee Christianity itself won’t be persecuted by rival religion. Progressive push for a secular public square paradoxically best defends the “Freedom of the Individual” Kradin cherishes. By preventing the state from becoming the Church’s arm, we prevent the Church from becoming the state’s tool—a lesson learned through European religious wars.
While Kradin critiques “Identity Politics” as divisive, the solution is not monocultural hegemony but Solidarity Politics—recognizing that the Christian coal miner’s struggle (economic displacement) structurally links to the Muslim immigrant’s struggle (xenophobia). Both are casualties of neoliberal capitalism. A liberatory synthesis proposes a Multi-Faith Working Class coalition built on shared material interests: Catholic Social Teaching on workers’ rights, Islamic prohibition of exploitative lending, Jewish Jubilee debt forgiveness tradition, and progressive economic democracy.
While Kradin fixates on ideological warfare, the biosphere collapses. The real “Red-Green Alliance” needed allies Social Justice (Red) and Ecology (Green). Abrahamic faiths offer vital resources: Islamic Khalifah (stewardship), Christian Sacramentality, Jewish Bal Tashchit (prohibition of wanton destruction). Progressive movement provides policy expertise while religious traditions provide moral energy. Kradin’s culture war distracts from this necessary convergence toward planetary survival.
The Symphony of the Sacred
Richard Kradin’s article sounds warning from a fortress he believes besieged. This review argues his vision constitutes hallucination born of fear. What he interprets as “destruction of Christianity” may better be understood as Purification from worldly power. What he frames as “sparing Islam” is Extension of Empathy. What he diagnoses as “Misotheism” may constitute a secular manifestation of the Abrahamic drive for justice.
We are not witnessing the West’s death but its Complexification. The “Judeo-Christian” solo evolves into “Abrahamic-Humanist” symphony. The Progressive yearns for Justice; the Christian seeks Redemption; the Muslim pursues Balance. These are not enemies but different dialects articulating the same human longing.
The consonance runs deep: Tzedakah (Jewish justice), Agape (Christian love), Adl (Islamic justice), and Secular Human Rights all affirm human dignity’s inviolability. They employ different metaphysical frameworks but converge on practical ethics: feed the hungry, house the homeless, welcome the stranger, seek peace.
The “Arch” in our title invokes both architecture and narrative. Architecturally, an arch requires multiple stones in tension, each supporting others. The Abrahamic traditions and progressive humanism function similarly—each brings distinct gifts, and their productive tension creates space for human flourishing. Narratively, the “Covenant” invokes the Abrahamic promise: blessing flowing through Abraham’s descendants to all nations.
Let us not construct walls to protect God; the Transcendent needs no fortress. Let us instead build bridges to protect each other—that is the true Covenant. In an age of authoritarianism, ecological collapse, and nuclear proliferation, we cannot afford civilizational warfare based on constructed antagonisms. The choice is stark: symphony or cacophony, synthesis or schism, solidarity or scapegoating.
Kradin fears removing Christianity from a privileged position leads to tyranny. History suggests the opposite: Pluralistic democracies protecting all faiths equally prove more stable, free, and just than theocracies. The “secular” is not Christianity’s destroyer but unlikely guardian, ensuring the Gospel remains a living word freely chosen rather than cultural inheritance coercively imposed.
Together, these traditions might yet compose a civilization worthy of the human dignity they all affirm. That is the Arch of the Covenant—not monument to a single tradition’s triumph, but a shared architecture of hope spanning the chasms of our differences, inviting us to cross over and encounter the stranger as a sibling.
Bibliography
Cohen, Arthur A. The Myth of the Judeo-Christian Tradition. New York: Harper & Row, 1970.
Crenshaw, Kimberle. “Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against Women of Color.” Stanford Law Review 43, no. 6 (1991): 1241–1299.
Dorff, Elliot N. The Way Into Tikkun Olam (Repairing the World). Woodstock, VT: Jewish Lights Publishing, 2005.
Garner, Steve, and Saher Selod. “The Racialization of Muslims: Empirical Studies of Islamophobia.” Critical Sociology 41, no. 1 (2015): 9–19.
Girard, René. The Scapegoat. Translated by Yvonne Freccero. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1986.
Gutas, Dimitri. Greek Thought, Arabic Culture: The Graeco-Arabic Translation Movement in Baghdad and Early Abbasid Society. London: Routledge, 1998.
Gutiérrez, Gustavo. A Theology of Liberation: History, Politics, and Salvation. Translated by Sister Caridad Inda and John Eagleson. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1973.
Harvey, David. A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.
King, Martin Luther, Jr. Where Do We Go from Here: Chaos or Community? Boston: Beacon Press, 1967.
Kugle, Scott Siraj al-Haqq. Homosexuality in Islam: Critical Reflection on Gay, Lesbian, and Transgender Muslims. Oxford: Oneworld Publications, 2010.
Maimonides, Moses. Mishneh Torah: Laws of Gifts to the Poor. Translated by Eliyahu Touger. Brooklyn, NY: Moznaim Publishing, 1990.
Makdisi, John. “The Islamic Origins of the Common Law.” North Carolina Law Review 77, no. 5 (1999): 1635–1739.
Mamdani, Mahmood. Good Muslim, Bad Muslim: America, the Cold War, and the Roots of Terror. New York: Pantheon Books, 2004.
Menocal, Maria Rosa. The Ornament of the World: How Muslims, Jews, and Christians Created a Culture of Tolerance in Medieval Spain. New York: Little, Brown and Company, 2002.
Rauschenbusch, Walter. A Theology for the Social Gospel. New York: Macmillan, 1917.
Sahih al-Bukhari. Translated by Muhammad Muhsin Khan. Riyadh: Darussalam Publishers, 1997.
Said, Edward W. Orientalism. New York: Pantheon Books, 1978.
Sanders, E. P. Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977.
Shariati, Ali. On the Sociology of Islam. Translated by Hamid Algar. Berkeley, CA: Mizan Press, 1979.
Silk, Mark. Spiritual Politics: Religion and America Since World War II. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1988.
Smith, Wilfred Cantwell. Islam in Modern History. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1957.
Soulen, R. Kendall. The God of Israel and Christian Theology. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996.
Tripp, Charles. Islam and the Moral Economy: The Challenge of Capitalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.
Get the latest CounterCurrents updates delivered straight to your inbox.
V.A. Mohamad Ashrof is an independent Indian scholar specializing in Islamic humanism. With a deep commitment to advancing Quranic hermeneutics that prioritize human well-being, peace, and progress, his work aims to foster a just society, encourage critical thinking, and promote inclusive discourse and peaceful coexistence. He is dedicated to creating pathways for meaningful social change and intellectual growth through his scholarship. He can be reached at [email protected]
Countercurrents is answerable only to our readers. Support honest journalism because we have no PLANET B.
Become a Patron at Patreon
GET COUNTERCURRENTS DAILY NEWSLETTER STRAIGHT TO YOUR INBOX
Get CounterCurrents updates on our WhatsApp and Telegram Channels
Vik Khanna’s article, Abrahamic Myth: How Islam Rebranded the God of the Bible, published in Blaze Media on November 16, 2025, advances a sharply polemical thesis that challenges the legitimacy…
For generations, people have claimed that men are superior to women, sometimes in the name of culture, sometimes in the name of science, and at times even in the name…
Robert Spencer, a prominent figure in the anti-Islam movement, is widely recognized for his unwavering and often uncritical support of Israel, aligning closely with American militarism and interventionist foreign policy…
In October 2025, a tranquil village in Kerala’s Malappuram district unexpectedly became the stage for an intense ideological confrontation. On the wall of Mukkuthala GLP School appeared a Malayalam translation…
This paper explores the theological and ethical tensions between Pope Leo XIV’s recent exhortation to “welcome and assist migrants” and Christine Douglass-Williams’ polemical rejection of that call, as given in…
The contemporary landscape of interfaith relations is frequently navigated through a complex interplay of diplomacy, cultural exchange, and often, contentious discourse. In this intricate arena, certain voices choose to amplify…
Get the latest CounterCurrents updates straight to your inbox.
Join Countercurrents Annual Fund Raising Campaign and help us
by V A Mohamad Ashrof
by Brad Reed
by Dan Steinbock
by Ashish Singh
by Roger D Harris and John Perry
by Michelle Ellner
by Alfred W McCoy
by Bharat Dogra
by Dr Binoy Kampmark
by Rohit Rakshit
by Dr Jas Simran Kehal
by Dr M Sridhar Acharyulu
by Dr Suresh Khairnar
by Dr Ranjan Solomon
by Harsh Mander
by Cedric Prakash
by Shamsul Islam
by DV Rao
by Campaign Against State Repression
by Sahasranshu Dash and Devsurabhee Yaduvanshi
by Dr Ranjan Solomon
by Ashish Singh
by E A S Sarma
by Vijay Prashad
by Jason Hickel
by Bharat Dogra
by Melissa Garriga
by Martina Moneke
by Amir Nour
by S G Vombatkere
by Quds News Network
by People's Summit Towards COP30
by Malak Hijazi
by Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor
by Livneet Shergill
by Rima Najjar
by Dr Mahboob A Khawaja
by Phil Rockstroh
by Thomas Klikauer
by Dr Binoy Kampmark
by Smitha Janet Nilgiris
by Binu Mathew
by Countercurrents Collective
Independent journalism for people and planet
Founded March 27, 2002 by Binu Mathew, we’ve been bringing you independent news and analysis for over two decades.
Educate! Organize! Agitate!
Get our latest articles delivered to your inbox
Copyright © Countercurrents