Digital & Print Membership
Yearly + Receive 8 free printed back issues
$420 Annually
Monthly + Receive 3 free printed back issues
$40 Monthly
Richie Reseda

CÉLINE SEMAAN: Congratulations on your new film. It’s really amazing. How has the response been?
RICHIE RESEDA: There have been all kinds of responses. The responses that are most exciting to me are from people who have lived through something similar to “88” [the name of RICHIE’s album collaborator who was also incarcerated]. Maybe they were incarcerated, or they lost a family member to murder, or both. We did a screening and healing circle in a prison for children in the Bay Area, and there was a 14-year-old kid in there whose cousin was killed while he was locked up. The person who killed his cousin ended up going to the prison and he told 88 that because he saw his film, he felt like he might be able to forgive the person who killed his cousin, rather than respond with revenge. Those are the responses that mean everything.
CÉLINE: It seems that your service to liberation starts from your personal, lived experience. Please share a bit about what motivates you to create these types of creative expression.
RICHIE: I hate when people call me an activist. I hate the idea of activism because it implies that we’re doing something “special” by caring for one another. That’s such an inherently colonial way of thinking. The colonizers taught us that your life is about you, and anything you do for anyone else is extra or “giving back.” You’re not giving back anything. You’re just participating in the environment. You’re participating in the community, and hopefully in a way that sustains that environment and that community.
I’m from LA, and I grew up being criminalized my whole fucking life. The first time I had a negative experience with the cops, I was four years old. The first time I was put in handcuffs was for horse playing, when I was 11 years old. Then I was arrested when I was 13 for leaving school early to get a haircut. I was arrested at 14 for scratching the dirt off my desk. I was arrested at 15 for talking during an assembly. That time, I was choked by the cops. I was arrested for being late to school. I was first kicked out of school when I was eight years old for talking too much, and eventually kicked out of society and sent to prison.
I started making art when I was 14, but the way this society is set up, and the way the Los Angeles Unified School District and the Los Angeles School Police were set up, made creating art extremely difficult. They called making art gay, and they meant that in a negative way. So I became the exact thing I was told to become by every movie. I acted out the things I saw. And eventually, I wasn’t getting arrested for getting haircuts anymore. I was getting arrested for selling drugs, and I was getting arrested for having guns on me and for stealing shit. I was living on the streets as a 16-year-old trying to survive. I wanted to work at American Apparel, hella bad, because I was into fashion, and I would go to all their open calls in downtown LA. I went seven times. It was a two-and-a-half-hour bus ride, and they never hired me. They had a pamphlet about what kind of black people to hire. I guess I wasn’t that kind.

One day, I came home after my seventh time trying to get a job there, and my homeboy, who I was staying with, was like, “We can’t just live off my mom… like, we got to make something happen.” He had some weed on him, and that’s how I got into selling drugs for real. I survived on the streets for about two and a half years before getting locked up at 19. I’d committed three robberies. They tried to give me a life sentence, but I ended up getting 10 years. When I was in prison, I tried to make music and get closer to my true self, and put aside the mask I’d been wearing to fit into a society based in violence. After a few years, I met 88, who was also an artist like me.
CÉLINE: Did you find yourself?
RICHIE: I don’t know if I found myself in prison. I chose myself in prison, which was a scary thing to do. I chose, in a really violent place, to be comfortable expressing all the parts of me, including my femininity, which is something that is looked down on and preyed on in this current version of society. Prisons reflect the society around them. One thing I learned being in prison is that you can’t act like you’re not afraid; you have to genuinely not be afraid. If you’re trying to act like you’re not afraid, you will be preyed on. It is deep heart work to genuinely not be afraid of your own people when they’ve been pushed to show up at their worst. You must truly be able to see the best in people while they’re showing up at their worst. I had to do that for myself, and then I had to do that for the people I was locked up with, because if I chose to see everybody as monsters who just wanted to take something from me, that was all I was going to see.
CÉLINE: Much of your work challenges patriarchy. How do you see gender justice as inseparable from dismantling the prison-industrial complex?
RICHIE: The way I think about it is: domination versus connection. The colonial world teaches us we need to dominate, dominate our bodies, dominate each other, and dominate nature to survive. I feel like Indigeneity is about connecting. We connect with our bodies, we connect with each other, we connect with nature to survive. I was taught that masculinity was based in domination, and the people who were allowed to be connected were the more feminine people. I don’t want to imply that masculinity can’t naturally be connected… but that’s not the way it’s taught in this society. Because I was so feminine, I overcompensated for it by being violent. I did that for a while, and then I eventually chose to have more integrity…
One of my biggest blessings is that I grew up in the super-masculine LA street culture, and I grew up around queer, non-binary, and feminine women of color who politicized me and trained me to be an organizer. Being part of both is what has allowed me to be
who I am, because I could bring those connective practices to my street friends in a way that they understood, and that’s what I seek to do with my art. I’m trying to bring integrity and connection into our communities in a way that our communities can actually relate to.
CÉLINE: It’s an abolitionist practice to tell our stories, to reclaim our narrative. How did you develop the narrative for your film? Did it come to you organically or intuitively, or did you find it in some other way? Who is it for?
RICHIE: Just to respond to the connection between ending patriarchy and prison abolition. Prisons and individualism go hand-in-hand. You can’t have one without the other. Like policing and individualism go hand-in-hand. If you want to keep living an individualist life, there will always be policing. Prisons are based on the idea that domination is necessary. Whereas, if we practice true integrity with ourselves, the community, and the earth, I’m going to get my needs met in a way that also serves the needs of the whole, the same way plants, forests, and the cells in our bodies do. We don’t need punishment to scare people into “doing the right thing” if we’re serving the needs of the whole. I’ve been organizing since 2006… I don’t start with the institutions we’re tearing down. I start with the culture we must build up so that we can learn how to live in integrity with one another.

CÉLINE: What is the culture we’re building? It’s not just about expanding our imagination, which storytelling is a big part of, but it’s also about defining the sort of culture that is needed for a world of liberation. The heart of it is through abolitionist work, but it also touches on so many other struggles…
RICHIE: I would say it’s about more than just imagining. It’s about practicing. Culture is a practice. You can make a post, or you can make a movie, or you can make a TV show. That is a cultural product, but if it doesn’t change the way people are meeting their needs on a daily basis, you haven’t changed culture. Culture has to be practiced by human beings. Culture is made up of the patterns that come up as we collectively meet our needs. People see something, get inspired by it, and then go live the same way they did before watching it, because the cultural product, in and of itself, doesn’t actually support anybody in practicing something new.
We have a tool that we developed as part of this project called The Abolition Dream Lab: A Healing Plan. In the Healing Plan, there’s a step for how we can actually live from an abolitionist perspective. How can we live in integrity with ourselves, the community, and the earth today… it’s through the practice of building “accountability pods” as Mia Mingus (an American writer, educator, and community organizer who focuses on issues of disability justice) calls them. I’m committed to meeting my needs in a way that also meets the needs of the community and all living things. Then I ask my closest people to hold me accountable to that. We can build consensual accountability. This is an actual mechanism with which to govern the New World.
CÉLINE: You said there’s a difference between a cultural product, like a movie or a platform or a book, and actually changing culture. How do you change culture, whether it’s around abolition, anti-racism, or anti-Zionism? How do we change policies?
RICHIE: We have to first practice the new culture and then invite people to do it with us, and by doing it together, it will change whatever the practice is. I’m a formerly incarcerated, cisgender, “man.” I’m Black, from LA, and I speak English… All these things affect how I practice accountability, which is our ticket out of violence-based governing. My work is centered around literally creating cultural products that are a portal into cultural practices that get us away from dominance and into integrity. When we’re talking about a society truly based in care, as opposed to violence and domination, that is radical for us here, living in the West. For many Indigenous peoples all over the world, that’s not radical at all.
CÉLINE: Your movie is a generous offering, because making something like this takes so much work, and it takes so much ruffling feathers, and it’s a battle to get there, to get to putting it out. How has it been?
RICHIE: I have been working on this project for 10 years. It has been an uphill, independent battle the whole time. We sold it to Netflix after it was done. It’s not like we had major institutional support at every turn. We’ve had to go against the grain and figure it out and do it in the community way… 88 and I produced this music in prison. We recorded it in prison. Once we were out, we took the prison vocals and produced new music around those vocals. We had no money; we had to figure it out independently. We’ve walked into film festivals where our film was showing and been asked, “Are you guys seat fillers?” I’m so fucking tired and burnt out…
CÉLINE: I feel you deeply. It is the hard road, but it’s really beautiful, what you’ve created, and it’s magical. Building frameworks of care and non-dominance outside of this culture of dominance is the hardest path. How have you been building this framework of care for yourself?
RICHIE: I got called out by my best friend and a lot of my close people, who were like, “Bro, you need to center how you’re being and not just how you’re spreading, because otherwise you’re not going to spread the thing for real. If you’re burnt out, you’re going to spread burnt outness.” If you lack boundaries, you’re going to spread a lack of boundaries and all the chaos that comes with that. And that has happened in all the organizations I’ve founded and co-founded, and led. Since 2022, I’ve been investing a lot of time in my own integrity practice. I have an accountability pod made up of three brothers… We share a lot of experiences, and we link up once a month and hold each other accountable. I have another kind of unofficial pod with feminine women in it… I need that type of accountability too, because their perspective is different, and they catch things that my pod doesn’t catch.

CÉLINE: Assata Shakur talks in her book, Assata: An Autobiography, about how one of her mentors said to her regarding being an organizer, you should start by organizing yourself. Your kitchen is a mess, your room is a mess, your whole life is a mess. How can you talk about organizing and affecting the world outside when your world inside is a mess? I’m paraphrasing. But it’s essentially what you’re saying, that what’s happening inside is going to reflect outside. I am building a model of care that includes me. How did you design a way that also includes you?
RICHIE: Many healing movements have been discouraging because they’re all about how you take care of yourself at the expense of everyone else. It’s ultimately in service to capitalism, not community. That’s not the kind of healing we’re pushing for… I am a member of a greater body. I am just one cell in a greater body, and I need to take care of myself as one of those cells. I was able to start really prioritizing and taking care of myself, because I understood it as part of this mission of getting back to connection and integrity, as opposed to something that was in competition with that.
CÉLINE: How do we support you? What does that look like?
RICHIE: Watching the movie, buying the album… We have merch too; I’m not ashamed of that. That’s not capitalism. We worked hard to offer something to exchange with the community for value… and all business isn’t capitalism.
CÉLINE: Business existed before capitalism!
RICHIE: Exactly. Capitalism has to do with how things are owned and how power is distributed. And we are a worker-owned collective. We make all of our decisions based on consensus. It’s not like I started the company and now I own it, and I make all the money. We share everything we have, and we have a model that can be replicated by any business.
You follow any war, any genocide, and you’ll find that it’s rooted in capitalist business practices. One way people can support us is by buying the things we put 10 years into creating. I don’t want to rely on grants; grants actually rely on exploitation, on rich people who steal from workers. They donate their money to foundations so they can write it off their taxes, and then those foundations give it to organizations trying to do good things for the world and treat us like they did us a favor. And then we’re reliant on the money of the people who created the problem in the first place. Practicing integrity is the only way we get out of a domination-based world. This movie isn’t a prison documentary. It’s a film about how a person and a family chose healing in response to unimaginable harm, murder, incarceration, and sexual violence… it’s ultimately a film about choosing healing. The reason I’ve dedicated a third of my life to making this album and making this film is because I wanted people to see a real-life example of choosing healing over revenge. And now we have an example that we can all see. It’s on Netflix. Now we have an example of what choosing healing actually looks like when it’s really, really hard to do.

In Conversation:
Photography by:
{
"article":
{
"title" : "Richie Reseda",
"author" : "Richie Reseda, Céline Semaan",
"category" : "interviews",
"url" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/readings/richie-reseda",
"date" : "2025-11-21 09:02:00 -0500",
"img" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/uploads/RIchieReseda_0032.jpg",
"excerpt" : "",
"content" : "CÉLINE SEMAAN: Congratulations on your new film. It’s really amazing. How has the response been?RICHIE RESEDA: There have been all kinds of responses. The responses that are most exciting to me are from people who have lived through something similar to “88” [the name of RICHIE’s album collaborator who was also incarcerated]. Maybe they were incarcerated, or they lost a family member to murder, or both. We did a screening and healing circle in a prison for children in the Bay Area, and there was a 14-year-old kid in there whose cousin was killed while he was locked up. The person who killed his cousin ended up going to the prison and he told 88 that because he saw his film, he felt like he might be able to forgive the person who killed his cousin, rather than respond with revenge. Those are the responses that mean everything.CÉLINE: It seems that your service to liberation starts from your personal, lived experience. Please share a bit about what motivates you to create these types of creative expression.RICHIE: I hate when people call me an activist. I hate the idea of activism because it implies that we’re doing something “special” by caring for one another. That’s such an inherently colonial way of thinking. The colonizers taught us that your life is about you, and anything you do for anyone else is extra or “giving back.” You’re not giving back anything. You’re just participating in the environment. You’re participating in the community, and hopefully in a way that sustains that environment and that community.I’m from LA, and I grew up being criminalized my whole fucking life. The first time I had a negative experience with the cops, I was four years old. The first time I was put in handcuffs was for horse playing, when I was 11 years old. Then I was arrested when I was 13 for leaving school early to get a haircut. I was arrested at 14 for scratching the dirt off my desk. I was arrested at 15 for talking during an assembly. That time, I was choked by the cops. I was arrested for being late to school. I was first kicked out of school when I was eight years old for talking too much, and eventually kicked out of society and sent to prison.I started making art when I was 14, but the way this society is set up, and the way the Los Angeles Unified School District and the Los Angeles School Police were set up, made creating art extremely difficult. They called making art gay, and they meant that in a negative way. So I became the exact thing I was told to become by every movie. I acted out the things I saw. And eventually, I wasn’t getting arrested for getting haircuts anymore. I was getting arrested for selling drugs, and I was getting arrested for having guns on me and for stealing shit. I was living on the streets as a 16-year-old trying to survive. I wanted to work at American Apparel, hella bad, because I was into fashion, and I would go to all their open calls in downtown LA. I went seven times. It was a two-and-a-half-hour bus ride, and they never hired me. They had a pamphlet about what kind of black people to hire. I guess I wasn’t that kind.One day, I came home after my seventh time trying to get a job there, and my homeboy, who I was staying with, was like, “We can’t just live off my mom… like, we got to make something happen.” He had some weed on him, and that’s how I got into selling drugs for real. I survived on the streets for about two and a half years before getting locked up at 19. I’d committed three robberies. They tried to give me a life sentence, but I ended up getting 10 years. When I was in prison, I tried to make music and get closer to my true self, and put aside the mask I’d been wearing to fit into a society based in violence. After a few years, I met 88, who was also an artist like me.CÉLINE: Did you find yourself?RICHIE: I don’t know if I found myself in prison. I chose myself in prison, which was a scary thing to do. I chose, in a really violent place, to be comfortable expressing all the parts of me, including my femininity, which is something that is looked down on and preyed on in this current version of society. Prisons reflect the society around them. One thing I learned being in prison is that you can’t act like you’re not afraid; you have to genuinely not be afraid. If you’re trying to act like you’re not afraid, you will be preyed on. It is deep heart work to genuinely not be afraid of your own people when they’ve been pushed to show up at their worst. You must truly be able to see the best in people while they’re showing up at their worst. I had to do that for myself, and then I had to do that for the people I was locked up with, because if I chose to see everybody as monsters who just wanted to take something from me, that was all I was going to see.CÉLINE: Much of your work challenges patriarchy. How do you see gender justice as inseparable from dismantling the prison-industrial complex?RICHIE: The way I think about it is: domination versus connection. The colonial world teaches us we need to dominate, dominate our bodies, dominate each other, and dominate nature to survive. I feel like Indigeneity is about connecting. We connect with our bodies, we connect with each other, we connect with nature to survive. I was taught that masculinity was based in domination, and the people who were allowed to be connected were the more feminine people. I don’t want to imply that masculinity can’t naturally be connected… but that’s not the way it’s taught in this society. Because I was so feminine, I overcompensated for it by being violent. I did that for a while, and then I eventually chose to have more integrity…One of my biggest blessings is that I grew up in the super-masculine LA street culture, and I grew up around queer, non-binary, and feminine women of color who politicized me and trained me to be an organizer. Being part of both is what has allowed me to bewho I am, because I could bring those connective practices to my street friends in a way that they understood, and that’s what I seek to do with my art. I’m trying to bring integrity and connection into our communities in a way that our communities can actually relate to.CÉLINE: It’s an abolitionist practice to tell our stories, to reclaim our narrative. How did you develop the narrative for your film? Did it come to you organically or intuitively, or did you find it in some other way? Who is it for?RICHIE: Just to respond to the connection between ending patriarchy and prison abolition. Prisons and individualism go hand-in-hand. You can’t have one without the other. Like policing and individualism go hand-in-hand. If you want to keep living an individualist life, there will always be policing. Prisons are based on the idea that domination is necessary. Whereas, if we practice true integrity with ourselves, the community, and the earth, I’m going to get my needs met in a way that also serves the needs of the whole, the same way plants, forests, and the cells in our bodies do. We don’t need punishment to scare people into “doing the right thing” if we’re serving the needs of the whole. I’ve been organizing since 2006… I don’t start with the institutions we’re tearing down. I start with the culture we must build up so that we can learn how to live in integrity with one another.CÉLINE: What is the culture we’re building? It’s not just about expanding our imagination, which storytelling is a big part of, but it’s also about defining the sort of culture that is needed for a world of liberation. The heart of it is through abolitionist work, but it also touches on so many other struggles…RICHIE: I would say it’s about more than just imagining. It’s about practicing. Culture is a practice. You can make a post, or you can make a movie, or you can make a TV show. That is a cultural product, but if it doesn’t change the way people are meeting their needs on a daily basis, you haven’t changed culture. Culture has to be practiced by human beings. Culture is made up of the patterns that come up as we collectively meet our needs. People see something, get inspired by it, and then go live the same way they did before watching it, because the cultural product, in and of itself, doesn’t actually support anybody in practicing something new.We have a tool that we developed as part of this project called The Abolition Dream Lab: A Healing Plan. In the Healing Plan, there’s a step for how we can actually live from an abolitionist perspective. How can we live in integrity with ourselves, the community, and the earth today… it’s through the practice of building “accountability pods” as Mia Mingus (an American writer, educator, and community organizer who focuses on issues of disability justice) calls them. I’m committed to meeting my needs in a way that also meets the needs of the community and all living things. Then I ask my closest people to hold me accountable to that. We can build consensual accountability. This is an actual mechanism with which to govern the New World.CÉLINE: You said there’s a difference between a cultural product, like a movie or a platform or a book, and actually changing culture. How do you change culture, whether it’s around abolition, anti-racism, or anti-Zionism? How do we change policies?RICHIE: We have to first practice the new culture and then invite people to do it with us, and by doing it together, it will change whatever the practice is. I’m a formerly incarcerated, cisgender, “man.” I’m Black, from LA, and I speak English… All these things affect how I practice accountability, which is our ticket out of violence-based governing. My work is centered around literally creating cultural products that are a portal into cultural practices that get us away from dominance and into integrity. When we’re talking about a society truly based in care, as opposed to violence and domination, that is radical for us here, living in the West. For many Indigenous peoples all over the world, that’s not radical at all.CÉLINE: Your movie is a generous offering, because making something like this takes so much work, and it takes so much ruffling feathers, and it’s a battle to get there, to get to putting it out. How has it been?RICHIE: I have been working on this project for 10 years. It has been an uphill, independent battle the whole time. We sold it to Netflix after it was done. It’s not like we had major institutional support at every turn. We’ve had to go against the grain and figure it out and do it in the community way… 88 and I produced this music in prison. We recorded it in prison. Once we were out, we took the prison vocals and produced new music around those vocals. We had no money; we had to figure it out independently. We’ve walked into film festivals where our film was showing and been asked, “Are you guys seat fillers?” I’m so fucking tired and burnt out…CÉLINE: I feel you deeply. It is the hard road, but it’s really beautiful, what you’ve created, and it’s magical. Building frameworks of care and non-dominance outside of this culture of dominance is the hardest path. How have you been building this framework of care for yourself?RICHIE: I got called out by my best friend and a lot of my close people, who were like, “Bro, you need to center how you’re being and not just how you’re spreading, because otherwise you’re not going to spread the thing for real. If you’re burnt out, you’re going to spread burnt outness.” If you lack boundaries, you’re going to spread a lack of boundaries and all the chaos that comes with that. And that has happened in all the organizations I’ve founded and co-founded, and led. Since 2022, I’ve been investing a lot of time in my own integrity practice. I have an accountability pod made up of three brothers… We share a lot of experiences, and we link up once a month and hold each other accountable. I have another kind of unofficial pod with feminine women in it… I need that type of accountability too, because their perspective is different, and they catch things that my pod doesn’t catch.CÉLINE: Assata Shakur talks in her book, Assata: An Autobiography, about how one of her mentors said to her regarding being an organizer, you should start by organizing yourself. Your kitchen is a mess, your room is a mess, your whole life is a mess. How can you talk about organizing and affecting the world outside when your world inside is a mess? I’m paraphrasing. But it’s essentially what you’re saying, that what’s happening inside is going to reflect outside. I am building a model of care that includes me. How did you design a way that also includes you?RICHIE: Many healing movements have been discouraging because they’re all about how you take care of yourself at the expense of everyone else. It’s ultimately in service to capitalism, not community. That’s not the kind of healing we’re pushing for… I am a member of a greater body. I am just one cell in a greater body, and I need to take care of myself as one of those cells. I was able to start really prioritizing and taking care of myself, because I understood it as part of this mission of getting back to connection and integrity, as opposed to something that was in competition with that.CÉLINE: How do we support you? What does that look like?RICHIE: Watching the movie, buying the album… We have merch too; I’m not ashamed of that. That’s not capitalism. We worked hard to offer something to exchange with the community for value… and all business isn’t capitalism.CÉLINE: Business existed before capitalism!RICHIE: Exactly. Capitalism has to do with how things are owned and how power is distributed. And we are a worker-owned collective. We make all of our decisions based on consensus. It’s not like I started the company and now I own it, and I make all the money. We share everything we have, and we have a model that can be replicated by any business.You follow any war, any genocide, and you’ll find that it’s rooted in capitalist business practices. One way people can support us is by buying the things we put 10 years into creating. I don’t want to rely on grants; grants actually rely on exploitation, on rich people who steal from workers. They donate their money to foundations so they can write it off their taxes, and then those foundations give it to organizations trying to do good things for the world and treat us like they did us a favor. And then we’re reliant on the money of the people who created the problem in the first place. Practicing integrity is the only way we get out of a domination-based world. This movie isn’t a prison documentary. It’s a film about how a person and a family chose healing in response to unimaginable harm, murder, incarceration, and sexual violence… it’s ultimately a film about choosing healing. The reason I’ve dedicated a third of my life to making this album and making this film is because I wanted people to see a real-life example of choosing healing over revenge. And now we have an example that we can all see. It’s on Netflix. Now we have an example of what choosing healing actually looks like when it’s really, really hard to do."
}
,
"relatedposts": [
{
"title" : "Malcolm X and Islam: U.S. Islamophobia Didn’t Start with 9/11",
"author" : "Collis Browne",
"category" : "",
"url" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/readings/malcolm-x-and-islam",
"date" : "2025-11-27 14:58:00 -0500",
"img" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/uploads/life-malcolm-3.jpg",
"excerpt" : "",
"content" : "Anti-Muslim hate has been deeply engrained and intertwined with anti-Black racism in the United States for well over 60 years, far longer than most of us are taught or are aware.As the EIP team dug into design research for the new magazine format of our first anniversary issue, we revisited 1960s issues of LIFE magazine—and landed on the March 1965 edition, published just after the assassination of Malcolm X.The reporting is staggering in its openness: blatantly anti-Black and anti-Muslim in a way that normalizes white supremacy at its most fundamental level. The anti-Blackness, while horrifying, is not surprising. This was a moment when, despite the formal dismantling of Jim Crow, more than 10,000 “sundown towns” still existed across the country, segregation remained the norm, and racial terror structured daily life.What shocked our team was the nakedness of the anti-Muslim propaganda.This was not yet framed as anti-Arab in the way Western Islamophobia is often framed today. Arab and Middle Eastern people were not present in the narrative at all. Instead, what was being targeted was organized resistance to white supremacy—specifically, the adoption of Islam by Black communities as a source of political power, dignity, and self-determination. From this moment, we can trace a clear ideological line from anti-Muslim sentiment rooted in anti-Black racism in the 1960s to the anti-Arab, anti-MENA, and anti-SWANA racism that saturates Western culture today.The reporting leaned heavily on familiar colonial tropes: the implication of “inter-tribal” violence, the suggestion that resistance to white supremacy is itself a form of reverse racism or inherent aggression, and the detached, almost smug tone surrounding the violent death of a cultural leader.Of course, the Nation of Islam and Elijah Muhammad represent only expressions within an immense and diverse global Muslim world—spanning Morocco, Sudan, the Gulf, Iraq, Pakistan, Indonesia, and far beyond. Yet U.S. cultural and military power has long blurred these distinctions, collapsing complexity into a singular enemy image.It is worth naming this history clearly and connecting the dots: U.S. Islamophobia did not begin with 9/11. It is rooted in a much older racial project—one that has always braided anti-Blackness and anti-Muslim sentiment together in service of white supremacy, at home and abroad."
}
,
{
"title" : "The Billionaire Who Bought the Met Gala: What the Bezoses’ Check Means for Fashion’s Future",
"author" : "Louis Pisano",
"category" : "",
"url" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/readings/the-billionaire-who-bought-the-met-gala",
"date" : "2025-11-27 10:41:00 -0500",
"img" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/uploads/Cover_EIP_TBesos_MET_Galajpg.jpg",
"excerpt" : "On the morning of November 17, 2025, the Metropolitan Museum of Art announced that Jeff Bezos and Lauren Sánchez Bezos would serve as the sole lead sponsors of the 2026 Met Gala and its accompanying Costume Institute exhibition, “Costume Art”. Saint Laurent and Condé Nast were listed as supporting partners. To be clear, this is not a co-sponsorship. It is not “in association with.” It is the first time in the modern history of the gala that the headline slot, previously occupied by Louis Vuitton, TikTok, or a discreet old-money surname, has been handed to a tech billionaire and his wife. The donation amount remains undisclosed, but sources familiar with the negotiations place it comfortably north of seven figures, in line with the checks that helped the event raise $22 million last year.",
"content" : "On the morning of November 17, 2025, the Metropolitan Museum of Art announced that Jeff Bezos and Lauren Sánchez Bezos would serve as the sole lead sponsors of the 2026 Met Gala and its accompanying Costume Institute exhibition, “Costume Art”. Saint Laurent and Condé Nast were listed as supporting partners. To be clear, this is not a co-sponsorship. It is not “in association with.” It is the first time in the modern history of the gala that the headline slot, previously occupied by Louis Vuitton, TikTok, or a discreet old-money surname, has been handed to a tech billionaire and his wife. The donation amount remains undisclosed, but sources familiar with the negotiations place it comfortably north of seven figures, in line with the checks that helped the event raise $22 million last year.Within hours of the announcement, the Met’s Instagram post was overrun with comments proclaiming the gala “dead.” On TikTok and X, users paired declarations of late-stage capitalism with memes of the museum staircase wrapped in Amazon boxes. Not that this was unexpected. Anyone paying attention could see it coming for over a decade.When billionaires like Bezos, whose Amazon warehouses reported injury rates nearly double the industry average in 2024 and whose fashion supply chain has been linked to forced labor and poverty wages globally, acquire influence over prestigious institutions like the Met Museum through sponsorships, it risks commodifying fashion as a tool for not only personal but corporate image-laundering. To put it simply: who’s going to bite the hand that feeds them? Designers, editors, and curators will have little choice but to turn a blind eye to keep the money flowing and the lights on.Back in 2012, Amazon co-chaired the “Schiaparelli and Prada” gala, and honorary chair Jeff Bezos showed up in a perfectly respectable tux with then-wife MacKenzie Scott by his side and an Anna Wintour-advised pocket square. After his divorce from Scott in 2019, Bezos made a solo appearance at the Met Gala, signaling that he was becoming a familiar presence in fashion circles on his own. Of course, by that point, he already had Lauren Sánchez. Fast forward to 2020: print advertising was crumbling, and Anna Wintour co-signed The Drop, a set of limited CFDA collections sold exclusively on Amazon, giving the company a veneer of fashion credibility. By 2024, Sánchez made her Met debut in a mirrored Oscar de la Renta gown personally approved by Wintour, signaling that the Bezos orbit was now squarely inside the fashion world.Then, the political world started to catch up, as it always does. In January 2025, Sánchez and Bezos sat three rows behind President-elect Donald Trump at the inauguration. Amazon wrote a one-million-dollar check to Trump’s inaugural fund, and Bezos, once mocked by Trump as “Jeff Bozo,” publicly congratulated Trump on an “extraordinary political comeback.” By June 2025, Bezos and Sánchez became cultural and political mainstays: Sánchez married Bezos in Venice, wearing a Dolce & Gabbana gown Wintour had helped select. This landed Sánchez the digital cover of American Vogue almost immediately afterward. Wintour quietly handed day-to-day control of the magazine to Chloe Malle but kept the Met Gala, the global title, and her Condé Nast equity stake, cementing a new era of fashion power where money, influence, and optics are inseparable.Underneath all of it, the quiet hum of Amazon’s fashion machine continued to whirr. By 2024, the company already controlled 16.2 percent of every dollar Americans spent on clothing, footwear, and accessories—more than Walmart, Target, Macy’s, and Nordstrom combined. That same year, it generated $34.7 billion in U.S. apparel and footwear revenue that year, with the women’s category alone on pace to top $40 billion. No legacy house has ever had that volume of real-time data on what people actually try on, keep, or return in shame. Amazon can react in weeks rather than seasons, reordering winning pieces, tweaking existing ones, and killing unpopular options before they’re even produced at scale.Wintour did more than simply observe this shift; she engineered a soft landing by bringing Amazon in when it was still somewhat uncool and seen mostly as a discount retailer, lending it credibility when it needed legitimacy, and spending the last two years turning Sánchez from tabloid footnote to Vogue cover star. The Condé Nast sale rumors that began circulating in July 2025, complete with talk of Wintour cashing out her equity and Sánchez taking a creative role, have been denied by every official mouthpiece. But they have also refused to die, because the timeline is simply too tidy.The clearest preview of what billionaire ownership can do to a cultural institution remains Bezos’ other pet project, The Washington Post. Bezos bought it for $250 million in 2013, saved it from bankruptcy, and built it into a profitable digital operation with 2.5 million subscribers. Then, in October 2024, he personally blocked a planned editorial endorsement of Kamala Harris. More than 250,000 subscribers canceled in the following days. By February 2025, the opinion section was restructured around “personal liberties and free markets,” triggering another exodus and the resignation of editorial page editor David Shipley. Former executive editor Marty Baron called it “craven.” The timing, just months after Bezos began warming to the incoming Trump administration, was not lost on anyone. The story didn’t stop there: in the last few days, U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance revealed he had texted Bezos suggesting the hiring of a right-leaning Breitbart journalist, Matthew Boyle, to run the Post’s political coverage. This is a clear signal of how staffing decisions at a storied paper now sit within the same power matrix that funds the Met Gala and shapes culture, media, and politics alike. It’s a tangled, strategic web—all of Bezos’ making.It’s curious that, in the same 30-day window that the Trump DOJ expanded its antitrust inquiry into Amazon, specifically how its algorithms favor its own products over third-party sellers, including many fashion brands, the MET, a city-owned museum, handed the keys of its marquee event to the man whose company now wields outsized influence over designers’ fortunes and faces regulatory scrutiny from the administration he helped reinstall. This is not sponsorship; it’s leverage. Wintour once froze Melania Trump out of Vogue because she could afford to.But she cannot freeze out Sánchez or Bezos. Nor does she want to.So on the first Monday in May, the museum doors will open as they always do for the Met Gala. The carpet will still be red (or whatever color the theme demands). The photographs of celebrities posing in their interpretations of “Costume Art” will still break the internet. Andrew Bolton’s exhibition, roughly 200 objects tracing the dressed body across five millennia, displayed in the newly renamed Condé Nast Galleries, will still be brilliant. But the biggest check will come from the couple who already control 16 percent of America’s clothing spend, who own The Washington Post, and who sat three rows behind Trump at the inauguration. Everything else, guest list tweaks, livestream deals, shoppable moments, will flow from that single source of money and power. That is who now has the final word on the most influential night in American fashion."
}
,
{
"title" : "Communicating Palestine: A Guide for Liberation and Narrative Power",
"author" : "Palestine Institute for Public Diplomacy",
"category" : "essays",
"url" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/readings/communicating-palestine",
"date" : "2025-11-25 14:04:00 -0500",
"img" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/uploads/Cover_EIP_Template-MIT_Engineering_Genocide.jpg",
"excerpt" : "Communication as a Tool of Erasure",
"content" : "Communication as a Tool of ErasureAs new “peace plans” for Palestine are drafted far from Palestinian life, Palestinians find themselves once again spoken for - another reminder of how communication is weaponized to sustain Zionist colonialism. Colonialism doesn’t just seize land; it seizes the story and its agents. From early myths like “a land without a people for a people without a land” to today’s narrative spin that frames Palestinians as “rejecting peace,” the Zionist project has aimed to erase not only a people but also their agency, voice, and narratives.Today, as Israel continues its genocide on the ground, its propaganda apparatus, known as Hasbara (“explanation” in Hebrew), wages a parallel war over narrative in the media, in diplomatic halls, and online. From smear campaigns, to lobbying governments and media outlets, to pressuring digital platforms like Meta, the machinery of erasure is well-funded and relentless.As Edward Said wrote in Blaming the Victim, Zionist success was not just military - it was narrative. They won the global narrative battle long before 1948. Narrative control is not symbolic - it justifies policy, enables displacement, and legitimizes genocide.Our ResponseFor Palestinians, the narrative struggle has never been separate from the struggle for liberation. We recognized that incredible work is already being done to amplify Palestinian narratives and counter disinformation—through platforms like MAKAN, Decolonize Palestine, Let’s Talk Palestine, Newscord, and others. But what was missing was a one-stop toolkit that brings together the best practices and resources across all areas of communication, for everyone who communicates Palestine: media, policymakers, artists, content creators, advocates, and more. A space rooted not in defensiveness, but in reclaiming our agency and our narratives.So we built one.Communicating Palestine is more than a guide; it’s a manifesto for liberatory and decolonised communication. It is the outcome of a Palestinian-led process, woven from the wisdom of focus groups in Ramallah, Battir village, and Dheisheh Refugee Camp as well as journalists, activists and analysts. It centers Palestinian narratives on their own terms, refusing to be defined in reaction to the propaganda that seeks to erase them.What does the guide look like in practice? It’s a one-stop platform for anyone communicating about Palestine—journalists, activists, artists, policymakers. It’s organized into four core sections: Narratives and framings – analysis and recommendations to counter harmful tropes and disinformation. Visual representations – guidance for photographers, artists and video journalists on ethical imagery. **Communication and engagement practices **– tips and tools for ethical reporting and centering Palestinians with dignity, Tools – user-friendly resources that can be day-to-day support in your work. Practical checklists on key take-aways from across the guide Terminology guide for accurate wording and reporting. Photography and video guidelines to avoid harmful visuals. Resources countering disinformation, bias and fallacies. **This is a call to action. **It’s an invitation to unlearn the narratives we’ve been fed, to relearn how to engage with dignity and integrity, and to finally practice a form of communication that doesn’t just talk about justice, but actively builds it—one word, one image, one story at a time."
}
]
}