Digital & Print Membership
Yearly + Receive 8 free printed back issues
$420 Annually
Monthly + Receive 3 free printed back issues
$40 Monthly
Saul Williams
Nothing is Just a Song

Collis Browne: Is all music and art really political?
Saul Williams: Many artists would like to believe that there is some sort of sublime neutrality that art can deliver, that it is beyond or above the idea of politics. However, art is sometimes used as a tool of Empire, and if we are not careful, then our art is used as propaganda, and thus, it becomes essential for us to arm our art with our viewpoints, with our perspective, so that it cannot be misused. I have always operated from the position that all my work carries politics in it, that there are politics embedded in it. And I’ve never really understood, if you are aiming to be an artist, why you wouldn’t aim to speak directly to the times. Addressing the political doesn’t have to take away from the personal intimacy of your work.
Even now, we are reading the writings of Palestinian poets in Gaza and the West Bank, not to mention those who are part of the diaspora, who are charting their feelings and intimate experiences while living through a genocide. These works of art are all politically charged because they are charged with a reality that is fully suppressed by oppressive networks and powers that control them.
Shakespeare’s work was always political. He found a way to speak about power to the face of power, knowing they would be in the audience. But also found a way to play with and talk to the “groundlings,” the common people who were in the audience as well.
Collis Browne: Was there a moment when you realized that your music could be used as a tool of resistance?
Saul Williams: Yeah, I was in third grade, about eight or nine years old. I had been cast in a play in my elementary school. I loved the process of not only performing, but of sitting around the table and breaking down what the language meant and what the objective and the psychology of the character was, and what that meant during the time it was written. I came home and told my parents that I wanted to be an actor when I grew up. My father had the typical response: “I’ll support you as an actor if you get a law degree.” My mother responded by saying, “You should do your next school report on Paul Robeson, he was an actor and a lawyer.”
So I did my next school report on Paul Robeson. And what I discovered was that here was an African American man, born in 1898, who had come to an early realization as an actor that the messages of the films he was being cast in—and he was a huge star—went against his own beliefs, his own anti-colonial and anti-imperial beliefs. In the 1930s, he started talking about why we needed to invest in independent cinema. In 1949, during the McCarthy era, he had his passport taken from him so he could no longer travel outside of the US, because he refused to acknowledge that the enemies of the US were his enemies as well. He felt there was no reason Black people should be signing up to fight for the US Empire when they were going home and getting lynched.
In 1951, he presented a mandate to the UN called “We Charge Genocide.” In it he charged the US Government with the genocide of African Americans because of the white mobs who were lynching Black Americans on a regular basis. [Editor’s note: the petition charges the US Government with genocide through the endorsement of both racism and “monopoly capitalism,” without which “the persistent, constant, widespread, institutionalized commission of the crime of genocide would be impossible.”] When Robeson met with President Truman, Truman said, “I’d like to respond, but there’s an election coming up, so I have to be careful.”
Paul Robeson sang songs of working-class people, songs that trade unionists sang, songs that miners sang, songs that all types of workers sang across the world. He identified with the workers and with the working class, regardless of his fame. He was ridiculed by the American Government and even had his passport revoked for his activism. At that early age, I learned that you could sing songs that could get you labeled as an enemy of the state.

I grew up in Newburgh, New York, which is about an hour upstate from New York City. One of my neighbors would often come sing at my father’s church. At the time, I did not understand why my dad would allow this white guy with his guitar or banjo to come sing at our church when we had an amazing gospel choir. I couldn’t understand why we were singing these school songs with this dude. When I finally asked my parents, they said, “You have to understand that Pete—they were talking about Pete Seeger—is responsible for popularizing some of the songs you sing in school.” He wrote songs like “If I Had a Hammer,” and he too was blacklisted by the US government because of the songs he chose to sing and the people he chose to sing them for, and the people he chose to sing them with. I learned at a very early age that music and art were full of politics. Enough politics to get you labeled as the enemy of the state. Enough politics to get your passport taken, or to be imprisoned.
I was also learning about my parents’ peers, artists whom they loved and adored. Artists like Sonia Sanchez, Amiri Baraka, and Nikki Giovanni, all from the Black Arts Movement. Larry Neal and Amiri Baraka made a statement when they started the Black Arts Repertory Theatre School in Harlem that said essentially that all art should serve a function, and that function should be to liberate Black minds.
It is from that movement that hip-hop was born. I was lucky enough to witness the birth of hip-hop. At first, it was playful, it was fun, but by the mid to late 1980s, it began finding its voice with groups like Public Enemy, KRS-One, Queen Latifa, Rakim, and the Jungle Brothers. These are groups that started using and expressing Black Liberation politics in the music, which uplifted it, made it sound better, and made it hit harder. The first gangster rap was that… when it was gangster, when it was directly challenging the country it was being born in.
As a teenager, I identified as a rapper and an actor. I would argue with school kids who insisted, “It’s not even music. They’re just talking.” I would have to defend hip-hop as music, sometimes even to my parents, who found the language crass. But when I played artists like KRS-One and Public Enemy for my parents, they said, “Oh, I see what they’re doing here.”
When Public Enemy rapped, “Elvis was a hero to most, But he never meant shit to me you see, Straight up racist that sucker was, Simple and plain, Motherfuck him and John Wayne, ‘Cause I’m Black and I’m proud, I’m ready and hyped plus I’m amped, Most of my heroes don’t appear on no stamps,” my parents were like Amen. They understood. They understood why I needed to blast that music in my room 24/7. They understood.
When the music spoke to me in that way, suddenly I could pull off moves on the dance floor like doing a flip that I couldn’t do before. That’s the power of music. That’s power embedded in music. That’s why Fela Kuti said that music is the weapon of the future. And, of course, there’s Nina Simone and Billie Holiday. What’s Billie Holiday’s most memorable song? “Strange Fruit.” That voice connected, was speaking directly to the times she was living in. It transcended the times, where to this day, when you hear this song and you understand that the “strange fruit” hanging from Southern trees are Black people who have been lynched, you understand how the power of the voice, when you connect it to something that is charged with the reality of the times, takes on a greater shape.
Collis Browne: Public Enemy broke open so much. I grew up in Toronto, in a mostly white community, but I was into some of the bigger American hip-hop acts who were coming out. Public Enemy rose to a new level. Before them, we were only connecting with punk and hardcore music as the music of rebellion.
Saul Williams: Public Enemy laid down the groundwork for what hip-hop is: “the voice of the voiceless.” It was only after Public Enemy that you saw the emergence of huge groups in France, Germany, Bulgaria, Egypt, and across the world. There were big acts before them. Run DMC, for instance, but when Public Enemy came out, marginalized groups heard their music and said, “That’s for us. Yes, that’s for us.” It was immediately understood as music of resistance.

Collis Browne: What have you seen or listened to out in the world that has a clear political goal, but has been appropriated and watered down?
Saul Williams: We can stay on Public Enemy for that. Under Secretary Blinken, Chuck D became a US Global Music Ambassador during the genocide in Gaza. There are photos of him standing beside Secretary Blinken, accepting that role, while understanding that the US has always used music as a cultural propaganda tool to express soft power. I remember learning about how the US uses this “soft power” when I was working in the mid-2000s with a Swiss composer, who has now passed, named Thomas Kessler. He wrote a symphony based on one of my books, Said the Shotgun to the Head, and we were performing it with the Cologne, Germany symphony orchestra, when I heard from the head of the orchestra that, in fact, their main financier was the US Government through the CIA.
During the Cold War, it was crucial for the American Government to put money into the arts throughout Western Europe to try to express this idea of “freedom,” as opposed to what was happening in the Eastern (Communist) Bloc. So it was a long time between when the US Government started enlisting musicians and other artists in their propaganda campaigns and when I encountered this information.
There’s a documentary called Soundtrack to a Coup d’État, which talks about how the US Government used (uses) music and musicians to co-opt movements and propagate the idea of American freedom and democracy outside the US in the hope of winning over the citizens of other countries without them even realizing that so much of that art is there to question the system itself, not to celebrate it. Unfortunately, there are situations in which an artist’s work is co-opted to be used as propaganda, and the artist buys into it. They become indoctrinated, and you realize that we’re all susceptible to the possibility of taking that bait.

In Conversation:
Photography by:
{
"article":
{
"title" : "Saul Williams: Nothing is Just a Song",
"author" : "Saul Williams, Collis Browne",
"category" : "interviews",
"url" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/readings/saul-williams-interview",
"date" : "2025-07-21 21:35:46 -0400",
"img" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/uploads/EIP_SaulWilliams_Shot_7_0218.jpg",
"excerpt" : "Saul Williams: Many artists would like to believe that there is some sort of sublime neutrality that art can deliver, that it is beyond or above the idea of politics. However, art is sometimes used as a tool of Empire, and if we are not careful, then our art is used as propaganda, and thus, it becomes essential for us to arm our art with our viewpoints, with our perspective, so that it cannot be misused. I have always operated from the position that all my work carries politics in it, that there are politics embedded in it. And I’ve never really understood, if you are aiming to be an artist, why you wouldn’t aim to speak directly to the times. Addressing the political doesn’t have to take away from the personal intimacy of your work.",
"content" : "Collis Browne: Is all music and art really political?Saul Williams: Many artists would like to believe that there is some sort of sublime neutrality that art can deliver, that it is beyond or above the idea of politics. However, art is sometimes used as a tool of Empire, and if we are not careful, then our art is used as propaganda, and thus, it becomes essential for us to arm our art with our viewpoints, with our perspective, so that it cannot be misused. I have always operated from the position that all my work carries politics in it, that there are politics embedded in it. And I’ve never really understood, if you are aiming to be an artist, why you wouldn’t aim to speak directly to the times. Addressing the political doesn’t have to take away from the personal intimacy of your work.Even now, we are reading the writings of Palestinian poets in Gaza and the West Bank, not to mention those who are part of the diaspora, who are charting their feelings and intimate experiences while living through a genocide. These works of art are all politically charged because they are charged with a reality that is fully suppressed by oppressive networks and powers that control them.Shakespeare’s work was always political. He found a way to speak about power to the face of power, knowing they would be in the audience. But also found a way to play with and talk to the “groundlings,” the common people who were in the audience as well.Collis Browne: Was there a moment when you realized that your music could be used as a tool of resistance?Saul Williams: Yeah, I was in third grade, about eight or nine years old. I had been cast in a play in my elementary school. I loved the process of not only performing, but of sitting around the table and breaking down what the language meant and what the objective and the psychology of the character was, and what that meant during the time it was written. I came home and told my parents that I wanted to be an actor when I grew up. My father had the typical response: “I’ll support you as an actor if you get a law degree.” My mother responded by saying, “You should do your next school report on Paul Robeson, he was an actor and a lawyer.”So I did my next school report on Paul Robeson. And what I discovered was that here was an African American man, born in 1898, who had come to an early realization as an actor that the messages of the films he was being cast in—and he was a huge star—went against his own beliefs, his own anti-colonial and anti-imperial beliefs. In the 1930s, he started talking about why we needed to invest in independent cinema. In 1949, during the McCarthy era, he had his passport taken from him so he could no longer travel outside of the US, because he refused to acknowledge that the enemies of the US were his enemies as well. He felt there was no reason Black people should be signing up to fight for the US Empire when they were going home and getting lynched.In 1951, he presented a mandate to the UN called “We Charge Genocide.” In it he charged the US Government with the genocide of African Americans because of the white mobs who were lynching Black Americans on a regular basis. [Editor’s note: the petition charges the US Government with genocide through the endorsement of both racism and “monopoly capitalism,” without which “the persistent, constant, widespread, institutionalized commission of the crime of genocide would be impossible.”] When Robeson met with President Truman, Truman said, “I’d like to respond, but there’s an election coming up, so I have to be careful.”Paul Robeson sang songs of working-class people, songs that trade unionists sang, songs that miners sang, songs that all types of workers sang across the world. He identified with the workers and with the working class, regardless of his fame. He was ridiculed by the American Government and even had his passport revoked for his activism. At that early age, I learned that you could sing songs that could get you labeled as an enemy of the state.I grew up in Newburgh, New York, which is about an hour upstate from New York City. One of my neighbors would often come sing at my father’s church. At the time, I did not understand why my dad would allow this white guy with his guitar or banjo to come sing at our church when we had an amazing gospel choir. I couldn’t understand why we were singing these school songs with this dude. When I finally asked my parents, they said, “You have to understand that Pete—they were talking about Pete Seeger—is responsible for popularizing some of the songs you sing in school.” He wrote songs like “If I Had a Hammer,” and he too was blacklisted by the US government because of the songs he chose to sing and the people he chose to sing them for, and the people he chose to sing them with. I learned at a very early age that music and art were full of politics. Enough politics to get you labeled as the enemy of the state. Enough politics to get your passport taken, or to be imprisoned.I was also learning about my parents’ peers, artists whom they loved and adored. Artists like Sonia Sanchez, Amiri Baraka, and Nikki Giovanni, all from the Black Arts Movement. Larry Neal and Amiri Baraka made a statement when they started the Black Arts Repertory Theatre School in Harlem that said essentially that all art should serve a function, and that function should be to liberate Black minds.It is from that movement that hip-hop was born. I was lucky enough to witness the birth of hip-hop. At first, it was playful, it was fun, but by the mid to late 1980s, it began finding its voice with groups like Public Enemy, KRS-One, Queen Latifa, Rakim, and the Jungle Brothers. These are groups that started using and expressing Black Liberation politics in the music, which uplifted it, made it sound better, and made it hit harder. The first gangster rap was that… when it was gangster, when it was directly challenging the country it was being born in.As a teenager, I identified as a rapper and an actor. I would argue with school kids who insisted, “It’s not even music. They’re just talking.” I would have to defend hip-hop as music, sometimes even to my parents, who found the language crass. But when I played artists like KRS-One and Public Enemy for my parents, they said, “Oh, I see what they’re doing here.”When Public Enemy rapped, “Elvis was a hero to most, But he never meant shit to me you see, Straight up racist that sucker was, Simple and plain, Motherfuck him and John Wayne, ‘Cause I’m Black and I’m proud, I’m ready and hyped plus I’m amped, Most of my heroes don’t appear on no stamps,” my parents were like Amen. They understood. They understood why I needed to blast that music in my room 24/7. They understood.When the music spoke to me in that way, suddenly I could pull off moves on the dance floor like doing a flip that I couldn’t do before. That’s the power of music. That’s power embedded in music. That’s why Fela Kuti said that music is the weapon of the future. And, of course, there’s Nina Simone and Billie Holiday. What’s Billie Holiday’s most memorable song? “Strange Fruit.” That voice connected, was speaking directly to the times she was living in. It transcended the times, where to this day, when you hear this song and you understand that the “strange fruit” hanging from Southern trees are Black people who have been lynched, you understand how the power of the voice, when you connect it to something that is charged with the reality of the times, takes on a greater shape.Collis Browne: Public Enemy broke open so much. I grew up in Toronto, in a mostly white community, but I was into some of the bigger American hip-hop acts who were coming out. Public Enemy rose to a new level. Before them, we were only connecting with punk and hardcore music as the music of rebellion.Saul Williams: Public Enemy laid down the groundwork for what hip-hop is: “the voice of the voiceless.” It was only after Public Enemy that you saw the emergence of huge groups in France, Germany, Bulgaria, Egypt, and across the world. There were big acts before them. Run DMC, for instance, but when Public Enemy came out, marginalized groups heard their music and said, “That’s for us. Yes, that’s for us.” It was immediately understood as music of resistance.Collis Browne: What have you seen or listened to out in the world that has a clear political goal, but has been appropriated and watered down?Saul Williams: We can stay on Public Enemy for that. Under Secretary Blinken, Chuck D became a US Global Music Ambassador during the genocide in Gaza. There are photos of him standing beside Secretary Blinken, accepting that role, while understanding that the US has always used music as a cultural propaganda tool to express soft power. I remember learning about how the US uses this “soft power” when I was working in the mid-2000s with a Swiss composer, who has now passed, named Thomas Kessler. He wrote a symphony based on one of my books, Said the Shotgun to the Head, and we were performing it with the Cologne, Germany symphony orchestra, when I heard from the head of the orchestra that, in fact, their main financier was the US Government through the CIA.During the Cold War, it was crucial for the American Government to put money into the arts throughout Western Europe to try to express this idea of “freedom,” as opposed to what was happening in the Eastern (Communist) Bloc. So it was a long time between when the US Government started enlisting musicians and other artists in their propaganda campaigns and when I encountered this information.There’s a documentary called Soundtrack to a Coup d’État, which talks about how the US Government used (uses) music and musicians to co-opt movements and propagate the idea of American freedom and democracy outside the US in the hope of winning over the citizens of other countries without them even realizing that so much of that art is there to question the system itself, not to celebrate it. Unfortunately, there are situations in which an artist’s work is co-opted to be used as propaganda, and the artist buys into it. They become indoctrinated, and you realize that we’re all susceptible to the possibility of taking that bait."
}
,
"relatedposts": [
{
"title" : "Trump’s attack on Venezuela: An Exemplary Punishment",
"author" : "Simón Rodriguez",
"category" : "essays",
"url" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/readings/trumps-attack-on-venezuela-an-exemplary-punishment",
"date" : "2026-01-14 10:13:00 -0500",
"img" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/uploads/Uncle_Sam_Straddles_the_Americas_Cartoon.jpg",
"excerpt" : "After four months of maritime siege in which the US military killed more than 100 people in alleged anti-drug trafficking operations and seized oil tankers, as well as the bombing of a small dock in northwestern Venezuela, Trump launched a large-scale attack and kidnapped de facto ruler Nicolás Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores, who were in Fuerte Tiuna, the country’s main military complex in Caracas.",
"content" : "After four months of maritime siege in which the US military killed more than 100 people in alleged anti-drug trafficking operations and seized oil tankers, as well as the bombing of a small dock in northwestern Venezuela, Trump launched a large-scale attack and kidnapped de facto ruler Nicolás Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores, who were in Fuerte Tiuna, the country’s main military complex in Caracas.The invaders attacked civilian targets such as the port of La Guaira, the Venezuelan Institute for Scientific Research, the Charallave airport, and electrical transmission infrastructure, as well as military installations in Caracas, Maracay, and Higuerote. The preliminary toll is around 80 dead and more than a hundred wounded. The US government claims that it suffered no casualties and that it had the support of infiltrators working for the CIA. This internal collaboration was crucial to the success of the attack.The Venezuelan military defeat has political causes, beyond US technical superiority. Chavismo has prioritized coup-proofing over military effectiveness, going so far as to have one of the highest rates of generals per capita in the world, who have been given control of various economic sectors for cronyism. Furthermore, the government lacks a military strategy for asymmetric resistance to imperialist aggression.During Chávez’s administration, in 2007, there was debate over which military model to adopt. Retired General Müller Rojas criticized the large investments in sophisticated military equipment, proposed by then-Defense Minister Raúl Isaías Baduel, proposing instead a doctrine of popular resistance and asymmetric warfare. Chávez settled the debate in Baduel’s favor, and in the following years, the Venezuelan government spent billions of dollars on arms purchases from Russia and China. This equipment proved useless in the face of the US attack, as the late Müller Rojas predicted, but it was part of the patronage system that enriched the Chavista military. Ironically, Baduel died as a political prisoner in 2021.A corrupt military may be useful for repressing workers, students, or indigenous peoples, but it can easily be bribed. Maduro himself does not seem to have had much confidence in the military, having entrusted his security largely to Cuban personnel, 32 of whom died in the US attack.Vice President Delcy Rodríguez assumed the interim presidency. She declared a state of emergency to avoid the constitutional requirement to call elections in the event of the head of state’s absence. The US government has stated that, through the continuation of the naval blockade and the threat of a second attack, it hopes to ensure that the Venezuelan government serves US interests. When asked on January 4 whether they would use this pressure to demand the release of political prisoners, Trump responded emphatically that he is interested in oil, and everything else can wait. In spite of this, the Venezuelan government announced on January 8 the unilateral release of an unspecified number of political prisoners. Human rights NGOs estimate there are around 800 political prisoners.The rights of Venezuelans have never interested Trump, as demonstrated not only by his lack of interest in democratic rights in Venezuela, but also by the racist persecution of Venezuelan immigrants in the US, stigmatized by Trump as criminals and mentally ill people allegedly sent by Maduro to “invade” the country, a fascistic discourse endorsed by the Venezuelan right-wing leader María Corina Machado. Thousands of Venezuelans have been deported to Venezuela, while hundreds have been sent to the CECOT, Latin America’s largest torture center, run by the dictatorship of El Salvador, under false accusations of belonging to the Tren de Aragua, a gang classified as a terrorist organization by Trump.Delcy Rodríguez has reportedly already reached an agreement with Trump to deliver between 30 and 50 million barrels of oil. The US government would sell the oil, establishing offshore accounts for this purpose outside the control of its own Treasury Department; part of the petrodollars generated would be used to pay debtors, and payments in kind would be made to the Venezuelan state, including equipment and supplies for oil production itself, as well as food and medicine.This policy bears similarities to the “Oil for food” program applied as part of the sanctions regime of the 1990s against Iraq. That program became a huge source of corruption in the UN. We can expect something similar or worse from Trump’s corrupt government. Chevron, which already is the main oil extractor in Venezuela, is lobbying for a privileged role in Trump’s plans for oil theft, enforced through a naval blockade and threats of new attacks, as the stock capacity on land or in ships off the Venezuelan coast reached their limit and the alternative was to stop production. On January 9, Trump met executives from Chevron, Conoco-Phillips, Exxon-Mobil, among other oil companies, to lay out the profits opportunities in Venezuela enhanced by military intervention.We are facing a new version of imperialist “gunboat diplomacy” and the methods of the “Roosevelt Corollary,” on which the US based its invasion of Latin American and Caribbean countries in the first half of the 20th century, taking control of their customs, as in the cases of the Dominican Republic, Haiti, and Nicaragua.Rodríguez’s capitulation has been interpreted by some as evidence that her rise to power was agreed with Trump, as startlingly quickly negotiations for the restoration of diplomatic relations, which were severed since 2019, have begun. For this purpose, a US delegation visited Caracas on January 9. Certainly, Chavismo’s anti-imperialism was always rather performative, it did not even nationalize the oil industry, and the US maintained an important presence through Chevron. The US remained Venezuela’s main trading partner until at least 2024.The regime is cooperating with the extortionist Trump, not resisting. The traditional right-wing opposition, which celebrated the January 3 attack (describing it as the beginning of Venezuela’s liberation), welcomes Trump’s measures. Not even Trump’s humiliation of Machado, when he declared she lacked “support” and “respect” within Venezuela, has led Venezuelan Trumpists to regain a modicum of sobriety. Their entire political strategy, after Maduro’s 2024 electoral fraud, has been solely to wait for Trump to hand them power.Trump’s priorities are different, although they could converge in the future with Machado: to distract attention from recently published documents reflecting his friendship with the criminal Jeffrey Epstein; to enhance his foreign policy based on extortion, refuting the Democratic slogan “Trump Always Chickens Out”, and to manage billions of petrodollars at the service of his business circle. And finally, in a more strategic sense, it represents the application of the new National Security doctrine, which gives priority to absolute US control of the hemisphere, expelling its imperialist competitors, China and Russia. Venezuela represented the most vulnerable point in the hemisphere for spectacular and exemplary military action. After the attack on Venezuela, threats against Colombia, Mexico, and even Greenland follow.Chavismo itself largely created its own vulnerability after years of anti-popular and anti-worker policies, such as imposing a minimum wage of less than USD$5 per month, eliminating workers’ freedom of association, persecuting indigenous peoples, defunding public health and education, and forcing the migration of 8 million Venezuelan workers, all while favoring the emergence of a new Bolivarian bourgeoisie through rampant corruption, creating new chasms of social inequality.Until 2015, Chavismo ruled with the support of electoral majorities. After its defeat in that year’s parliamentary elections, it took a dictatorial turn, relying on repression and electoral fraud, while bleeding the economy dry to pay off foreign debt, creating hellish hyperinflation. The economy contracted by around 80% between 2013 and 2021, most of this before US sanctions. The destruction was such that the export of scrap metal, obtained from the dismantling of abandoned industries, became one of Venezuela’s largest exports.It is illustrative to recall the cables from the US embassy in Caracas to the State Department, published by Wikileaks, which asked the Obama administration not to publicly confront Chávez, as this would strengthen him in the context of widespread popular rejection of the US. The current situation is different, with many Venezuelans cynically accepting US domination. Opposing imperialist intervention, on the other hand, does not save dissidents from persecution either. The presidential candidate backed by the Communist Party of Venezuela in 2024, Enrique Márquez, has been in prison for 10 months without formal charges.The humiliation to which the Venezuelan people are subjected today, under the double yoke of a dictatorship and a US siege, is brutal. The policy of aggression against Latin America and the Caribbean, the perceived sphere of US dominance, gains momentum with this attack. In the face of this we need a continental response, to defend the possibility of a free and dignified future for Venezuela and for all of Latin America and the Caribbean."
}
,
{
"title" : "A Lone Protester, Rain or Shine: One Man’s Daily Act of Dissent in Japan",
"author" : "Yumiko Sakuma",
"category" : "essays",
"url" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/readings/a-lone-protester-rain-or-shine",
"date" : "2026-01-13 10:00:00 -0500",
"img" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/uploads/Cover_EIP_Lone_Gaza_Japan.jpg",
"excerpt" : "Photographs by Chisato Hikita",
"content" : "Photographs by Chisato HikitaThe way Japan’s grassroots activism has shown up for the people of Palestine has been nothing short of extraordinary. In a country known for its low political engagement, I’ve met countless newly woken activists who not only joined the international movement but have also incorporated direct action into their daily lives through street protests, fundraising events and content creation, writing campaigns, etc. Many of them express frustration that demonstrations in Japan aren’t as large as those abroad, or that their efforts seem to yield little visible change, but their persistence and quiet stubbornness are unlike anything I’ve ever seen.One of the figures who has emerged from this movement is Yusuke Furusawa, who has taken to the streets every single day, seven days a week, for more than two years, usually for an hour or so each time. I came across him on social media and reached out while I was in Tokyo.The day we met was an excruciatingly hot Saturday in July. On my way to meet him near Shinjuku Station, a sprawling terminal of train lines, subways, and shopping complexes, he messaged to say he’d had to relocate because of a nearby Uyoku (right-wing nationalist) presence. As I exited one wing of the station, I passed a large crowd gathered around Uryu Hirano, a young hardline activist who had just lost her bid for a national council seat.Then I found Furusawa, delivering a monologue about what the Palestinian people have been enduring, about the complicity of the Japanese government, and about the tangled relationship between the U.S. military-industrial complex and the Israeli state. He stood in the middle of two opposing streams of foot traffic, turning every few seconds to address people coming from both directions, waving a large flag and holding a sign that read “Stop GAZA Genocide.”In October 2023, he had been home-bound for Covid. “I was frustrated because I wanted to go to the protests but couldn’t. Finally, feeling restless, I eventually stumbled out holding a placard, that’s how it all began. When I thought about how I’ve never really taken any actions on this issue while seeing these terrible situations unfolding every day, I just couldn’t sort out my feelings.”Furusawa makes his living as a prop maker for a broadcasting company while occasionally getting gigs as a theater actor. He wasn’t particularly political until a few years ago when he joined a local grass-roots movement to elect Satoko Kishimoto, an environmental activist and water rights activist who had lived in Belgium, to be Suginami Ward mayor against the pro-business, pro-development incumbent. Especially, he was inspired by the Hitori Gaisen, solo street demonstration, movement which was triggered by one person who decided to campaign by standing quietly on the street with a sign, which spread like a wild fire and resulted in a win by Kishimoto, a move viewed as a victory of the People, who were determined to stop the over development and gentrification.'I’m not really good at group activities, so rallies and marches aren’t really my thing. I get too tired trying too hard to chant or keep up with everyone else.” Previously, he had been suffering from depression. “This has been helpful like as a daily rehabilitation activity.”Thus, he stands alone, daily and consistently. As I watched him speak under the glaring sun, I was struck by how most people don’t even look up, or notice him, seemingly so self-absorbed or focused on where they are going. Occasionally, non-Japanese people stop and take pictures of/with him. While I was there, a mother and a kid from Turkey stopped him to thank him through a translation app on her phone. She had tears in her eyes. Furusawa said he does get yelled at a few times a day and was once even choked by a person who identified as an IDF personnel.This was a few days after July 20th, when Japan had a national council election where more than 8 million people voted for candidates from the Sansei Party, which ran on “Japanese First” platform and a far-right, nationalist political messaging. Furusawa says, a few Japanese people who walk up to him with encouraging signs tend to be ultra nationalists and conservatives. “A lot of times, these guys who say to me ‘you are great for standing against the United States,’ are far right people, which makes me feel defeated.” And there are younger ones who mock him or laugh at him.Do you have an idea as to how long you’d be doing this? I asked him. Furusawa told me about the time an Aljazeela crew came to his apartment to shoot a segment on him. When he told them, “I will stop if Israel stopped bombing Gaza,” the reporter said, “That is how Japanese people forget about the Middle East.” Furusawa thinks about this episode daily. “I realized I hadn’t understood anything at all, and I felt this helplessness like all my actions over the past four months were being erased in an instant. That’s when I made the decision to do it every day. Those words swirled around me daily.”After I came back to New York, I procrastinated writing this story. I tried writing it many times in my head, but between being disappointed in the surge of xenophobia and racism in Japan, dealing with medical issues and being scared as an immigrant, my head was not in the right place to give a proper ending to this story. Then, so called “ceasefire” was announced. I thought of him and reached out.I apologized to him for not writing a story sooner. “I didn’t know how to write the story without glorifying the protest movements.”He told me attacks by people from Israel were happening increasingly, probably like three times more, especially after the UK recognized the state of Palestine. “They come at me with anger. I’ve also met a few people from Palestine thanking me with tears for what I do. I feel l need to keep a distance from these emotions because what I am really protesting against is the illegal occupation and apartheid of Palestine and how we are not really facing it.”He hadn’t stopped his protests, still standing out there every day with a flag and a sign, delivering his monologue. He does so because, for one, he did not trust the “ceasefire,” but also because what he stands against is not just the current wave of assaults, bombing, starvation, etc.“I want to keep going until we seriously tackle the issue, not just go through the superficial motions of Palestine’s state recognition. It isn’t about just stopping the war. It is about getting people to care so that nations collectively help them. I am not talking about months, more like years because it is going to take time.”Lately, after spending an hour on anti-genocide protest, he stands with another sign for 30 minutes or so before he goes home. The sign says “Delusion of Hate.” That is because he thinks Japan’s xenophobia and hatred come from delusions. “A mix of victim mentality and inferiority complex, plus delusions inflated by conspiracy theories that don’t even exist.”That is when I realized what he is really fighting is indifference. He went on, “Some might find my style of protests noisy, annoying, or unpleasant. I want them to reject it. I want to get on their nerves, or talk to their hearts. Maybe that is how we can break through the indifference. That is going to take time, like years of time.”"
}
,
{
"title" : "Sanctions are a Tool of Empire",
"author" : "Collis Browne",
"category" : "essays",
"url" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/readings/sanctions-are-a-tool-of-empire",
"date" : "2026-01-13 08:35:00 -0500",
"img" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/uploads/Cover_EIP_Sanctions.jpg",
"excerpt" : "Sanctions & Embargoes only Hurt the People",
"content" : "Sanctions & Embargoes only Hurt the PeopleIn light of the economic collapse and ongoing social and political unrest in Venezuela and Iran, we must examine U.S. economic sanctions and how they contribute to and exacerbate these dynamics.Although framed as something much more innocuous or even righteous, sanctions are a form of economic warfare used to enforce U.S. & Western empire.What Sanctions AreSanctions block a country’s sovereign ability to act freely in a global world. They restrict trade, banking, investment, and access to global markets.Despite the myth of “free markets,” sanctions show how capitalism really works: Markets are only free when they serve power.They are usually installed against nations that show signs of independence from US and Western (capitalist) interests, such as any meaningful socialist policies, nationalizing resources or limiting foreign ownership or resources or property.Although the claim is usually around “punishing” a government for human rights abuses, There are plenty of governments that commit egregious human rights abuses that are never sanctioned because of favorable business policies towards US interests (global western capital), The US is itself guilty of grave human rights abuses both at home and abroad, so cannot claim to have any moral authority, and Many of the abuses are either exaggerated, outright fabricated, or are simply scapegoats to cover the real motives. To be clear: this does not excuse human rights abuses by any government, but sanctions are never the answer: they are never driven by a moral imperative, and are never successful in improving the materials conditions of the people of the countries affected.How Sanctions are UsedUS foreign policy uses sanctions as a key part of a familiar playbook: Claim that a government is a “dictatorship” or “threat” to democracy or security Cut the country off from trade and money Cause shortages, inflation, and unemployment People suffer — food, medicine, fuel become scarce Blame the suffering on the government, not the sanctions Further stir up unrest by covert actions on the ground agitating dissent and violence Often, provide material support for right-wing political opposition that favors US intervention and resource privatizationThe goal is pressure, chaos, and instability.The End GoalSanctions are a foundational step in a long-term campaign to destabilize a country or region by creating enough pain to force one of the following outcomes: Install a pro-U.S. government Enable or justify a coup Pave the way for military interventionAll of these are about resource extraction and unfettered access for multinational and Western corporations.Fact 1: Sanctions Don’t WorkSanctions Don’t Achieve Their Stated Political GoalsSince 1970, nearly 90% of sanctions have failed — meaning they did not force the target government to change its behavior or leadership. Report after report show that sanctions don’t produce freedom, democracy or peace, they produce suffering.Fact 2: Sanctions Punish PeopleSanctions Hurt the People, Not LeadersAcross 32 empirical studies*, sanctions were shown to: Increase poverty Increase inequality Increase mortality Worsen human rights outcomesRegional oligarchs and elites adapt, while ordinary people pay the price.Example: IraqIraq (1990s) Sanctions destroyed water, food, and healthcare systems Hundreds of thousands of civilians — many of them children — died as a direct result Saddam Hussein retained power, up until the eventual US invasionSanctions weakened the population, not the ruler.Example: VenezuelaVenezuela (2010s–present) Oil and banking sanctions collapsed imports and currency Medicine and food shortages surged Tens of thousands of excess deaths Massive emigration as millions fled the countryThe government survived. The people suffered. If anything, the sanctions contributed to the rise of the right-wing opposition against the strong socialist base of support.Example: SyriaSyria (2011–present) Sanctions began early in the conflict and intensified economic collapse They worsened shortages, unemployment, and infrastructure failure Economic destabilization deepened social fragmentation and displacementSanctions did not overthrow the government, but they amplified collapse, suffering, and long-term instability, making recovery and reconstruction nearly impossible.Example: IranIran (since 1979, and especially 2018–present) Sanctions targeted oil exports and global banking access Iran was cut off from foreign currency earnings The rial collapsed; inflation surged sharplySanctions directly restrict access to dollars and euros — forcing rapid currency devaluation, import inflation, and rising prices for basics even when goods are technically “allowed.”Inflation hits civilians first.Sanctions are a Tool of EmpireSanctions are a tool of global capitalist imperialism, and movements against US intervention must include a call against sanctions. They do not bring freedom or democracy. They enrich global financial elites, preserve imperial control, and devastate everyday people — again and again."
}
]
}