Digital & Print Membership
Yearly + Receive 8 free printed back issues
$420 Annually
Monthly + Receive 3 free printed back issues
$40 Monthly
Food Sovereignty
What does Utopia mean to you?
Growing up, I would think of it as a fantasy sort of realm, a way of living. You want to be in a space where everyone feels free to do what they want. There’s no negativity and all resources are shared by all. There’s peace and there’s harmony, throughout. It’s that magical place, that you as a human being, want to aspire to where you have a connection and harmony with not only humans, but with animals and plants as well.
Maybe that’s that’s why we wanted to tackle this question — because Utopia feels like this really perfect faraway ideal that’s almost unattainable, but when we think about community gardens, that almost feels like an applied utopia, a small scale version that we can study and possibly scale up. So how could you, or how would you, apply Utopia to the work that you do in community organizing or community gardening?
I’m doing it right now— living in my world and living my dream, working in community with the friends who shared a dream that we put out into the universe. We said, “One day, we’re gonna farm together,” and now we’re farming together and we live very closely together. We try to provide a safe space for the people that work with us and make it a place that follows our values. We’re rooted in food justice, and it’s something that we strive for. We’re not perfect because we’re human but there are tools and strategies out there that when we do have conflict, we can deal with it holistically. One thing to be very careful about Utopia is the human aspect. You do have frailties, you do have pitfalls, and you do have things that sometimes don’t meet your expectations. The ideal shouldn’t be perfection because then it doesn’t feel real. I remember growing up, and thinking to myself, “Wow, what if I had the ability to clone myself?” And then I say to myself, “Karen, what if everyone was like you? How boring would that be?” So even in Utopia, you have to make space for mistakes and to grow from your mistakes. Mistakes challenge you and and falling down challenges you, so, do we really want to strive for a place where everything is perfect? Or do you want to live in harmony? I wouldn’t say Utopia but harmony is where you’re able to find that level of balance.
I know you work a lot in food justice, which is an ideal for many of us, just like collective liberation is. They are really big ideas, but when I think about a world that’s utopic there IS food justice. So how do you approach those ideas within the work that you do?
Just give people a chance to be human. Give people a chance to have resources and land. Give people that opportunity to be themselves. I find that the world does not look at abundance, or who we are as people, but instead, always looks at scarcity. There’s this idea that if we give something to somebody it’s being taken away from someone else. All we ask for, especially people of color, is opportunity. We’re not taking away anything from anyone. We want what all people want: clean water, fresh food, to be healthy, to have a roof over their head, and the ability to provide for their family. I want to see people, no matter who they are, have the same opportunity as the next person: the same opportunity to buy a house, to live in an apartment, to live in any neighborhood and to have free access, without barriers. I just want people to look at people as being human, instead of judging them by race, religion, ethnicity or wealth. It’s very, very basic. When I walk in the door, the first thing people notice is that I’m Black. The second, that I’m a woman. Those are the two things I’ve been first recognized for all my life and I’ve never had a chance for people to look at me as just being me, just being human. For instance, I look at what is happening in Texas, how the governor has sent people on buses as if they’re products. How do we accept the notion, when people’s relatives came here as immigrants — not my relatives — who came enslaved, but how do we reckon with that when people deny others the same opportunity? There’s so much fear, because for so long you’ve been the oppressor, and now the country is starting to turn brown, diversify and it scares them, because of their own history of oppression and abuse. They’re triggered by brown and Black people in power because they’re afraid that they are going to replicate the oppressor, and do the same thing that they’ve done to us for so many years. So now you have to position yourself to hold on to what you feel is your value. But in the end, you’re going to lose because you cannot stop change. Either you embrace it or it’s going to change without you.
You mentioned that people need the opportunity to have land, clean water, and food, which seems inherently “Utopic” in and of itself, but how do we create access to land?
We have to change the dialogue as well as how we assess land. I had to change my whole concept of land ownership. How do we own land, or own anything when we don’t live long enough? I had to change my framework, because I realized I can no longer say I own anything. I can be a steward of the land, I can take care of it, but we’re not on Earth long enough to own it. We don’t really own anything. We can’t own anything because we’re gone in an instant. When you go on, the house doesn’t go with you. The land doesn’t go with you. You might think that that house is going to be in your house for generations and it might be! But it also might not be. Do you own it? Or do you just happen to be on this earth at this point in time? You can be a caretaker of land, you can have a home and enjoy it, but do you really own it? You don’t own anything—Nature owns it; it goes back to nature. It goes back to the universe.
How do we foster stewardship? Or how do we foster connection, or reconnection to the land? And how did we lose that connection to begin with?
It’s because we thought that Utopia was a house, a backyard, a car, and a job. We lost that connection. And in the end, when Armageddon comes, you can’t eat a car, or jewelry, or Bitcoin. The people who are going to survive are the people who know how to grow food. An orchard or the crops that I’m growing are priceless. We have to get back to the land, back to that call, back to what’s really real and what nourishes us. If we say that we turn to dust when we die and we return to the earth then we have to renew that connection to the earth. We’ve lost that because we were reaching for materialistic things that are empty. Going back to the land, being in the land, and building thankfulness for being a steward of the land is so satisfying. Those that are returning to the land by becoming farmers and caretakers are starting to see that connection again as we work with nature, rather than against it.
How would you say food sovereignty and even generally, just growing our own food and cultivating our connection with the land nurtures our mind body spirit? How is that utopic?
I say each and every day that someone made that long trip along the transatlantic coast, that ocean, that journey for me to be here. The suffering that they had to go through for me to be here means something and I got to tap into that. Someone sacrificed their life so I can be here and be in tune to that. To understand what it takes as a people to try to hold on to that legacy, that history, or how I got to be my being is so, so important. By understanding that then you understand the importance of community and the importance of learning about your legacy and the history in your family. I don’t know who that person was… I’ll find out maybe one day, but someone made a lot of sacrifices… a lot of sacrifice along the way for me to be here. I needed to be here in a place that’s far, far away from my ancestors. We need to stop for a second and acknowledge the ancestral lineage that we all have, and to be mindful of what that means, especially for people of color, and especially for African Americans who didn’t come through Ellis Island. We came here enslaved. So I think about going back and reaching out to that person along the line who gave me life to be here.
How do we reconcile that relationship with the land as peoples whose ancestors were enslaved, as people who are immigrants, as people who are refugees, and as people who are settlers? How do we find connection maybe to a land that’s not ours? And what does that seem like?
It’s not ours! Like I said, I’m farming on land that I can’t say is my land. All I can say is that I know that there are Indigenous people on this land, and they have given me the chance to be a caretaker. And that’s how I look at it. I can’t look at it as “Oh, I’m in Chester, New York, and I’m on land that I have no connection to.” I have been given that land to be a caretaker and I asked their permission to be that caretaker, and I try to take care of that land to the best of my ability.
How can the readers who read your interview apply utopia? How do we build the world that we deserve?
Treat each other with kindness. With love. It is so simple. Kindness and love. Easy, easy, easy, easy, easy, easy.
Topics:
Filed under:
Location:
{
"article":
{
"title" : "Food Sovereignty",
"author" : "Karen Washington",
"category" : "interviews",
"url" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/readings/food-sovereignty",
"date" : "2023-08-25 12:00:00 -0400",
"img" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/uploads/Newsletter_Banner_KarenWashington.jpg",
"excerpt" : "What does Utopia mean to you?Growing up, I would think of it as a fantasy sort of realm, a way of living. You want to be in a space where everyone feels free to do what they want. There’s no negativity and all resources are shared by all. There’s peace and there’s harmony, throughout. It’s that magical place, that you as a human being, want to aspire to where you have a connection and harmony with not only humans, but with animals and plants as well.",
"content" : "What does Utopia mean to you?Growing up, I would think of it as a fantasy sort of realm, a way of living. You want to be in a space where everyone feels free to do what they want. There’s no negativity and all resources are shared by all. There’s peace and there’s harmony, throughout. It’s that magical place, that you as a human being, want to aspire to where you have a connection and harmony with not only humans, but with animals and plants as well.Maybe that’s that’s why we wanted to tackle this question — because Utopia feels like this really perfect faraway ideal that’s almost unattainable, but when we think about community gardens, that almost feels like an applied utopia, a small scale version that we can study and possibly scale up. So how could you, or how would you, apply Utopia to the work that you do in community organizing or community gardening?I’m doing it right now— living in my world and living my dream, working in community with the friends who shared a dream that we put out into the universe. We said, “One day, we’re gonna farm together,” and now we’re farming together and we live very closely together. We try to provide a safe space for the people that work with us and make it a place that follows our values. We’re rooted in food justice, and it’s something that we strive for. We’re not perfect because we’re human but there are tools and strategies out there that when we do have conflict, we can deal with it holistically. One thing to be very careful about Utopia is the human aspect. You do have frailties, you do have pitfalls, and you do have things that sometimes don’t meet your expectations. The ideal shouldn’t be perfection because then it doesn’t feel real. I remember growing up, and thinking to myself, “Wow, what if I had the ability to clone myself?” And then I say to myself, “Karen, what if everyone was like you? How boring would that be?” So even in Utopia, you have to make space for mistakes and to grow from your mistakes. Mistakes challenge you and and falling down challenges you, so, do we really want to strive for a place where everything is perfect? Or do you want to live in harmony? I wouldn’t say Utopia but harmony is where you’re able to find that level of balance.I know you work a lot in food justice, which is an ideal for many of us, just like collective liberation is. They are really big ideas, but when I think about a world that’s utopic there IS food justice. So how do you approach those ideas within the work that you do?Just give people a chance to be human. Give people a chance to have resources and land. Give people that opportunity to be themselves. I find that the world does not look at abundance, or who we are as people, but instead, always looks at scarcity. There’s this idea that if we give something to somebody it’s being taken away from someone else. All we ask for, especially people of color, is opportunity. We’re not taking away anything from anyone. We want what all people want: clean water, fresh food, to be healthy, to have a roof over their head, and the ability to provide for their family. I want to see people, no matter who they are, have the same opportunity as the next person: the same opportunity to buy a house, to live in an apartment, to live in any neighborhood and to have free access, without barriers. I just want people to look at people as being human, instead of judging them by race, religion, ethnicity or wealth. It’s very, very basic. When I walk in the door, the first thing people notice is that I’m Black. The second, that I’m a woman. Those are the two things I’ve been first recognized for all my life and I’ve never had a chance for people to look at me as just being me, just being human. For instance, I look at what is happening in Texas, how the governor has sent people on buses as if they’re products. How do we accept the notion, when people’s relatives came here as immigrants — not my relatives — who came enslaved, but how do we reckon with that when people deny others the same opportunity? There’s so much fear, because for so long you’ve been the oppressor, and now the country is starting to turn brown, diversify and it scares them, because of their own history of oppression and abuse. They’re triggered by brown and Black people in power because they’re afraid that they are going to replicate the oppressor, and do the same thing that they’ve done to us for so many years. So now you have to position yourself to hold on to what you feel is your value. But in the end, you’re going to lose because you cannot stop change. Either you embrace it or it’s going to change without you.You mentioned that people need the opportunity to have land, clean water, and food, which seems inherently “Utopic” in and of itself, but how do we create access to land?We have to change the dialogue as well as how we assess land. I had to change my whole concept of land ownership. How do we own land, or own anything when we don’t live long enough? I had to change my framework, because I realized I can no longer say I own anything. I can be a steward of the land, I can take care of it, but we’re not on Earth long enough to own it. We don’t really own anything. We can’t own anything because we’re gone in an instant. When you go on, the house doesn’t go with you. The land doesn’t go with you. You might think that that house is going to be in your house for generations and it might be! But it also might not be. Do you own it? Or do you just happen to be on this earth at this point in time? You can be a caretaker of land, you can have a home and enjoy it, but do you really own it? You don’t own anything—Nature owns it; it goes back to nature. It goes back to the universe.How do we foster stewardship? Or how do we foster connection, or reconnection to the land? And how did we lose that connection to begin with?It’s because we thought that Utopia was a house, a backyard, a car, and a job. We lost that connection. And in the end, when Armageddon comes, you can’t eat a car, or jewelry, or Bitcoin. The people who are going to survive are the people who know how to grow food. An orchard or the crops that I’m growing are priceless. We have to get back to the land, back to that call, back to what’s really real and what nourishes us. If we say that we turn to dust when we die and we return to the earth then we have to renew that connection to the earth. We’ve lost that because we were reaching for materialistic things that are empty. Going back to the land, being in the land, and building thankfulness for being a steward of the land is so satisfying. Those that are returning to the land by becoming farmers and caretakers are starting to see that connection again as we work with nature, rather than against it.How would you say food sovereignty and even generally, just growing our own food and cultivating our connection with the land nurtures our mind body spirit? How is that utopic?I say each and every day that someone made that long trip along the transatlantic coast, that ocean, that journey for me to be here. The suffering that they had to go through for me to be here means something and I got to tap into that. Someone sacrificed their life so I can be here and be in tune to that. To understand what it takes as a people to try to hold on to that legacy, that history, or how I got to be my being is so, so important. By understanding that then you understand the importance of community and the importance of learning about your legacy and the history in your family. I don’t know who that person was… I’ll find out maybe one day, but someone made a lot of sacrifices… a lot of sacrifice along the way for me to be here. I needed to be here in a place that’s far, far away from my ancestors. We need to stop for a second and acknowledge the ancestral lineage that we all have, and to be mindful of what that means, especially for people of color, and especially for African Americans who didn’t come through Ellis Island. We came here enslaved. So I think about going back and reaching out to that person along the line who gave me life to be here.How do we reconcile that relationship with the land as peoples whose ancestors were enslaved, as people who are immigrants, as people who are refugees, and as people who are settlers? How do we find connection maybe to a land that’s not ours? And what does that seem like?It’s not ours! Like I said, I’m farming on land that I can’t say is my land. All I can say is that I know that there are Indigenous people on this land, and they have given me the chance to be a caretaker. And that’s how I look at it. I can’t look at it as “Oh, I’m in Chester, New York, and I’m on land that I have no connection to.” I have been given that land to be a caretaker and I asked their permission to be that caretaker, and I try to take care of that land to the best of my ability.How can the readers who read your interview apply utopia? How do we build the world that we deserve?Treat each other with kindness. With love. It is so simple. Kindness and love. Easy, easy, easy, easy, easy, easy."
}
,
"relatedposts": [
{
"title" : "The Aesthetics of Atrocity:: Lockheed Martin’s Streetwear Pivot",
"author" : "Louis Pisano",
"category" : "",
"url" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/readings/the-aesthetics-of-atrocity",
"date" : "2025-12-20 10:30:00 -0500",
"img" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/uploads/Cover_EIP_Lockheed_StreetWar.jpg",
"excerpt" : "On December 12, The Business of Fashion published an article titled “The Unlikely Rise and Uncertain Future of Lockheed Martin Streetwear,” detailing the world’s largest arms manufacturer’s entrance into casual apparel.",
"content" : "On December 12, The Business of Fashion published an article titled “The Unlikely Rise and Uncertain Future of Lockheed Martin Streetwear,” detailing the world’s largest arms manufacturer’s entrance into casual apparel.Through a licensing deal with South Korea’s Doojin Yanghang Corp., Lockheed turns fighter jet graphics, corporate slogans, and its star logo into gorpcore staples. Oversized outerwear, tactical pants, and advanced synthetic fabrics sell out at Seoul pop-ups like the Hyundai department store with young Korean consumers chasing the edgy, functional vibe. Andy Koh, a Seoul-based content creator, tells BoF that while arms manufacturing is, in theory, political, he has never encountered widespread discomfort among Korean consumers. “As long as it looks cool and the product functions as expected,” he says, “they seem okay with it.”This trend aligns with a broader South Korean fashion phenomenon: licensing logos from global non-fashion brands to create popular streetwear lines. Examples include National Geographic puffers, Yale crewnecks, Kodak retro tees, CNN hoodies, Discovery jackets, Jeep outdoor wear, and university apparel from institutions like Harvard and UCLA. These licensed collections, often featuring media, academia, sports leagues, or adventure themes, have become staples on online retailers like Musinsa and in brick-and-mortar stores, propelled by K-pop influence and a tech-savvy youth market that make these odd crossovers multimillion-dollar successes.Lockheed, however, is categorically different. Its core business is not exploration, education, or journalism. It is industrialized death, and its arrival in fashion forces a reckoning with how far commodification can stretch.Having spent years in the military, maybe I’m the wrong person to critique this. Or maybe I’m exactly the right one. I know what weapons are for, how they’re used, and the human cost they carry. Lockheed manufactures F-16 and F-35 fighter jets, Hellfire missiles, and precision-guided systems that human rights organizations have repeatedly linked to civilian casualties across multiple conflicts. In Yemen, U.S.-supplied weapons incorporating Lockheed technology contributed to thousands of civilian deaths since 2015, most notoriously the 2018 airstrike on a school bus in Saada that killed dozens of children. In Gaza, since October 2023, Lockheed-supplied F-35s and munitions have formed the backbone of air operations that Amnesty International and other watchdogs have flagged for potential violations of international humanitarian law, cases now under examination by the International Court of Justice.In 2024, the company reported $71 billion in revenue, almost entirely from military contracts, with more than 1,100 F-35s already delivered worldwide and production lines running hotter than ever. That staggering scale is the reality lurking beneath a logo now casually printed on everyday apparel.So why does the planet’s largest arms manufacturer license its brand to streetwear? The answer seems to be twofold: easy money and sophisticated image laundering. Licensing delivers low-risk royalties from Korea’s reported $35-40 billion apparel market with virtually no operational headache. Lockheed simply collects checks while a third-party manufacturer handles design, production, distribution, and deals with all the mess of retail.The far more ambitious goal, however, is reputational refurbishment. Doojin deliberately markets the line around “future-oriented technical aesthetics” and “aerospace innovation,” leaning on cutting-edge fabrics to conjure high-tech futurism instead of battlefield carnage. By late 2025, as U.S. favorability in South Korea continued to slide amid trade tensions and regional geopolitical shifts, the brand quietly de-emphasized its American roots, according to Lockheed representatives. The strategy clearly tries to sever the logo from political controversy and plant it firmly in youth culture, where aesthetic appeal routinely outmuscles ethical concern.Lockheed has honed this kind of rebranding for decades. Their corporate brochures overflow with talk of “driving innovation” and “advancing scientific discovery,” spotlighting STEM scholarships, veteran hiring initiatives, and rapid-response disaster aid. The clothing itself carries the same sanitized messaging. One prominent slogan reads “Ensuring those we serve always stay ahead of ready”, euphemistic corporate-speak that sounds heroic until you remember that “those we serve” includes forces deploying Hellfire missiles against civilian targets. Other pieces feature F-35 graphics paired with copy declaring the jet “strengthens national security, enhances global partnerships, and powers economic growth”. It’s textbook PR varnish. Instruments designed for lethal efficiency, now rebranded as symbols of progress and prosperity.We’ve also seen this trick before: Fast fashion brands that slap “sustainable” labels on sweatshop products. Tech giants that fund glamorous art installations while they harvest user data. Oil companies that rebrand themselves as forward-thinking “energy” players as the Earth’s climate burns. Lockheed, though, traffics in something uniquely irreversible: export-grade death. By licensing its identity to apparel, multibillion-dollar arms contracts are reduced to mere intellectual property; civilian casualties dissolved into, simply, background static.In other words, vibes overpower victims. And when those vibes are stamped with the logo of the planet’s preeminent death merchant, resistance feels futile.Gorpcore has always drawn from military surplus for its rugged utility: endless cargo pockets, indestructible nylons, tactical silhouettes born in combat and repurposed for city streets. Brands like Arc’teryx, The North Face, and Supreme mine that heritage for authenticity and performance. After World War II, army fatigues became symbols of genuine rebellion, worn by anti-war protesters as an act of defiance against the establishment. Today, the dynamic threatens to invert entirely. The establishment itself, the world’s preeminent arms dealer, now supplies the “authentic” merchandise, turning subversion into subtle endorsement.Streetwear grew out of skate culture, hip-hop, and grassroots rebellion against mainstream norms. Importing the aesthetics of atrocity risks converting that legacy into compliance, rendering militarism the newest version of mainstream cool. For a generation immersed in filtered feeds and rapid trend cycles, Lockheed’s logo can sit comfortably beside NASA patches or National Geographic emblems, conveniently severed from the charred wreckage in Saada or the devastation in Gaza. Research on “ethical fading” demonstrates how strong visual design can mute moral alarms, a phenomenon intensified in Korea’s hyper-trendy ecosystem, where mandatory military service may further desensitize young consumers to defense branding while K-pop’s global engine drives relentless consumption.If the line proves durable, escalation feels inevitable. Palantir, another cornerstone of the defense-tech world, has already gone there, hyping limited merch drops that sell out in hours: $99 athletic shorts stamped “PLTR—TECH,” $119 nylon totes, hoodies emblazoned with CEO Alex Karp’s likeness or slogans about “dominating” threats. What’s to stop Northrop Grumman from launching its own techwear line? Or BAE Systems from dropping high-end collaborations?Lockheed already licenses merchandise worldwide through various agencies; broader international rollouts beyond Korea seem only a matter of time. Backlash is possible, boycotts from ethically minded buyers, perhaps even regulatory scrutiny as anti-militarism sentiment swells. Gorpcore’s longstanding flirtation with military aesthetics could calcify into outright fetish, obliterating whatever daylight remained between practical function and state-sanctioned propaganda.Yet, history suggests that in oversaturated markets, “cool” almost always trumps conscience. Lockheed’s streetwear pivot is a stark illustration of how fashion and culture launder raw power, enabling the machinery of war to conceal itself among hype, hoodies, and sold-out drops."
}
,
{
"title" : "Our Era of Insecurity: How Unaffordability and Uncertainty Became Our Monoculture",
"author" : "Alissa Quart",
"category" : "essays",
"url" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/readings/our-era-of-insecurity",
"date" : "2025-12-16 11:56:00 -0500",
"img" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/uploads/Cover_EIP_Unaffordability.jpg",
"excerpt" : "In 2025, I’ve interviewed a number of people who saw themselves as living in “survival mode.” At first, their professions might surprise you. They are government contractors, public broadcasters, and tech workers, formerly safe professions. And some of their jobs disappeared this year due to DOGE “efficiency” cuts, the dismantling of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and AI acceleration. They are among the millions now living through an experience that I call terra infirma, a new level of economic and social uncertainty.",
"content" : "In 2025, I’ve interviewed a number of people who saw themselves as living in “survival mode.” At first, their professions might surprise you. They are government contractors, public broadcasters, and tech workers, formerly safe professions. And some of their jobs disappeared this year due to DOGE “efficiency” cuts, the dismantling of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and AI acceleration. They are among the millions now living through an experience that I call terra infirma, a new level of economic and social uncertainty.It’s the mood that encapsulates so much of Trump 2.0. A November 2025 Pew study found that almost half of U.S. adults are uncertain about having enough retirement income. When it comes to health insurance, they may be waiting for their ACA health subsidies to sunset or for their partner’s premiums to skyrocket. Addressing unaffordability and uncertainty is even the newest theme song in politics, most recently in the Maine campaign of gubernatorial candidate, oyster farmer and military veteran Graham Platner.Seventy years ago, the critic Raymond Williams used the term “structure of feeling” to describe a collective emotion that is tied to a time and place, as well as social and economic conditions. Today, our “structure of feeling” is uncertainty. You could even take it further, and call “precarity” the last monoculture as it’s a condition shared by so many Americans. As Astra Taylor, author of The Age of Insecurity: Coming Together as Things Fall Apart, says, insecurity is a “defining feature of our time.”As far as mass moods go, “insecurity” is certainly a disconcerting one. The economist Pranab Bardhan writes in A World of Insecurity, that “insecurity, more than inequality, agitates people.” What makes 2025 different from other years, however, is the degree to which we all experienced this precarity. The usual uncertainty level has been turned up from a whine to a 135-decibel air raid scream.What’s happened? Tariffs have raised our costs. Medicaid will be scaled back over the next decade by a trillion dollars. Meanwhile, dozens of Venezuelan fishermen have been exploded by our armed forces. And while two-thirds of Americans are already living with economic insecurity, their feelings about it don’t necessarily involve the discrepancy between their lot and those of the very rich. As Steven Semler, the co-founder of Security Policy Reform Institute (SPRI), explains it to me, these Americans have a mindset that “is more fearful of poverty than aspirations of being a millionaire.”The people of terra infirma do describe such fears. In the words of one, they’ve experienced a “mental health decline and a loss of purpose” and in another, “a serious financial pinch”, because they are their family’s main breadwinner. Uncertainty is the common refrain of the growing number of laid-off software workers, according to Human-Centered Design scholar Samuel So. In addition to feeling destabilized about their professional security for the first time, software workers have experienced disillusionment and alienation from the technology industry’s “military and police partnerships.” Jobs themselves are part of this insecurity, with never-ending hiring processes, the race of automation, and ghost jobs, the twisted contemporary version of the perished Russian serfs of Nikolai Gogol’s Dead Souls, except now professional opportunities are offered that don’t actually exist. People are also nervous about their future, because insecurity is a temporal emotion, as much about the future as the present. Many of us wonder how our security will further erode, as our health plan premiums soar, or as our subways catch on fire, or as ICE comes to our cities. This causes not only stress in the moment, but discomfort about what lies ahead.Of course, it’s not just Trump 2.0 alone that has caused this. The forces behind Trump’s win in 2024—and the anger at the traditional Democratic party—have something to do with this disposition, as well. In the weeks leading up to Trump’s election, people surveyed by the Federal Reserve Board ranked one of their top concerns as pricing and their top concern as inflation. Disparate phenomena—AI slop, job cuts, relentless and confusing cutbacks in crucial academic research—are entwined. It’s as if they were all figures in a paranoiac Thomas Pynchon novel. In a “world of insecurity,” as economist Bardhan writes, instabilities interlink. In other words, what I think of as “informational insecurity”—bots, false ads, fake news—often joins up with economic instability.These different instances of confusion and instability blend into a gnarly color wheel of distress. Economic distress, sure—that is also accentuated by societal, cultural, environmental, and physical examples of insecurity we see all around us, every day.How do we pick apart these knotted-together insecurities? For starters, we can embrace candidates who address economic uncertainty head-on, including New York’s new mayor, Zohran Mamdani, Seattle’s new mayor, Katie Wilson, and Virginia’s governor-elect Abigail Spanberger. These politicians, as Nicholas Jacobs has written of Maine candidate Platner, are “speaking to grievances that are real, measurable, and decades in the making.”Another line of defense is being brave and grasping for community in any way we can. I think of the ordinary people blowing whistles near Chicago to alert their neighbors when ICE showed up in their suburban towns: they were accidental upstanders, refusing to be part of manufactured uncertainty and instability.One traditional definition of security is “freedom from fear.” And while we are unlikely to experience that freedom from fear as long as the populist American Right continues its goosestep, it’s also important to remember that uncertainty, like any “structure of feeling,” is an unfinished emotion.Yes, insecurity shapes us now. But we, as a collective, are so much more than it. Because even if we are living in a time of such negative uncertainty, it won’t necessarily stay that way. We can still redefine ourselves and, most importantly, recognize we are not alone."
}
,
{
"title" : "On the Failures of Mainstream Media: The Rise of Independent Newsrooms",
"author" : "Céline Semaan",
"category" : "essays",
"url" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/readings/on-the-failures-of-mainstream-media",
"date" : "2025-12-15 15:53:00 -0500",
"img" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/uploads/B417273E-EA4A-4BB8-9245-081928282D6D.jpeg",
"excerpt" : "Has it become immoral to be featured in the New York Times? I remember when I first saw my face in the iconic newspaper that for decades was regarded as a global standard‑bearer of mainstream journalism, I felt vindicated. Vindicated because, finally, my Lebanese family stopped asking if I had a real career. Vindicated because they would maybe stop worrying that I had blown my chances (and their immense sacrifices getting me an education), devoting my life instead to art and endless revolution. The New York Times’ legitimacy, now long gone, was regarded as the highest badge of honor, in particular, for immigrant kids who chose a different path than the usual career options afforded to us, and despite their rebellion, found a way to be recognized for it.",
"content" : "Has it become immoral to be featured in the New York Times? I remember when I first saw my face in the iconic newspaper that for decades was regarded as a global standard‑bearer of mainstream journalism, I felt vindicated. Vindicated because, finally, my Lebanese family stopped asking if I had a real career. Vindicated because they would maybe stop worrying that I had blown my chances (and their immense sacrifices getting me an education), devoting my life instead to art and endless revolution. The New York Times’ legitimacy, now long gone, was regarded as the highest badge of honor, in particular, for immigrant kids who chose a different path than the usual career options afforded to us, and despite their rebellion, found a way to be recognized for it.When the headline for the piece read “Refugee Designer Shines a Light on Global Issues,” my mother called me that day, not to congratulate me, but to demand I contact the editor and have them remove the word “refugee” before the word “designer.” I tried, in vain. Little did I know that this form of belittling, discrediting, and choice of words designed to incite disdain and eventually violence was core to the New York Times’ ethos.Over the past two years, increasingly immoral headlines and editorial choices in its Opinion section have eroded that credibility among many readers and contributors, particularly around coverage of the war in Gaza. A growing number of scholars, writers, and public intellectuals have publicly criticized the Times for framing geopolitical violence in ways that align with oppressive power structures rather than interrogate them — a criticism that raises deep concerns about misinformation and manufactured consent of dangerous ideologies.Headlines like “Bondi Beach Is What ‘Globalize the Intifada’ Looks Like” and “No, Israel Is Not Committing Genocide in Gaza” are editorial strategies designed to reshape public understanding of systemic violence to support far-right narratives and the interests of the global military-industrial complex. What happens when mainstream media becomes a mouthpiece for fascism and arms dealers? Where “objectivity” is marketed as truth, but really serves as a code for “obey the rulers” and “ask no questions.”This editorial leadership at the New York Times has sparked significant backlash within the intellectual community and among independent journalists. More than 300 writers, scholars, and former contributors have pledged a boycott of the Times’ Opinion pages, accusing the paper of anti‑Palestinian bias and demanding editorial accountability, including a re‑evaluation of its coverage and calls for a U.S. arms embargo on Israel. Alongside this, peace and justice organizations have condemned their editorial decisions, such as rejecting advertising that simply described Israel’s actions in Gaza as genocide.The larger consequence of these controversies is not simply a reputational dispute; it reflects a broader shift in public trust away from legacy media toward people‑driven platforms that prioritize accountability, lived experience, and political context over corporate interests or geopolitical alignment. As mainstream outlets retreat from confronting systemic violence in favor of the bottom line, audiences — especially younger and more globally connected readers — are turning to independent media for context and truth‑telling that legacy institutions increasingly fail to provide.That’s where platforms like Everything is Political come in. I started this platform because I was fed up with pitching stories to mainstream media platforms and receiving bogus rejections, only to later read the most outrageous takes in their Opinion section, exposing racism and deliberate calls for violence that had real consequences for my people back home. Rather than treating opinion as a commodity or a battleground for corporate narratives, independent media like EIP can center historically grounded analysis, intersectional understanding, and ethical engagement with stories that cover conflict and power. In an age of globalization and hypermediated conflict, how media frames violence matters deeply — not just to who lives or dies on the ground, but also whose stories are amplified, whose suffering is recognized, and whose futures are imagined. Platforms accountable to audiences rather than corporate advertisers and shareholders must emerge to fill a vacuum created by a legacy press that too often places power over people. Outlets like Democracy Now!, The Intercept, BTNews, and countless others are leading the way, reporting accurate news without ever compromising their moral compass."
}
]
}