Digital & Print Membership
Yearly + Receive 8 free printed back issues
$420 Annually
Monthly + Receive 3 free printed back issues
$40 Monthly
The Wedding That Ate Venice
It wasn’t just a wedding. It was an occupation.
For a few deeply strange days in late June, Venice ceased being a city and became a film set, one where no one knew what movie was being made, who the audience was supposed to be, or why the lead actress had clearly studied every frame of Kim Kardashian’s wedding content like it was an NFL playbook. Lauren Sánchez, the new Mrs. Bezos, didn’t just get married. She tried to canonize herself.
And she had a plan. There was a glitzy bachelorette party in Paris. A carefully stage managed sunset cruise down the Seine under the hum of drones. There was a wedding in Italy, just like Kim. There was a Vogue exclusive, albeit digital, complete with a dolce-vita wannabe shoot in her Sophia Loren inspired Dolce & Gabbana wedding gown. And in perhaps the most surreal flourish, Sánchez booked Matteo Bocelli, son of Andrea Bocelli yes, the same Andrea who famously sang at Kim and Kanye’s wedding in Florence.
This is not a coincidence. This is scripting. This is someone trying very, very hard to manufacture a wedding-as-moment.
What she failed to realize is that it is no longer 2014. The culture has changed, the fantasy has expired, and Lauren Sánchez is not Kim Kardashian. She doesn’t have the influence, the intrigue, or the irony like the kind Kanye West once knew how to manufacture, art-directing a wedding that felt both sincerely grand and wryly self-aware. She has money and a lot of it but no myth. And that’s the problem.
To understand just how off Lauren Sánchez’s wedding was, you have to go back to the one she was clearly copying: Kim and Kanye, 2014, the wedding that practically invented the modern celebrity ceremony.
Say what you want about KimYe, but that wedding made an impact on the culture. Optimized for virality: high/low, couture-meets-chaos, social media bait wrapped in Givenchy. From the Parisian pre-wedding fits to the Florence ceremony staged in front of a crumbling fortress, everything was hyper-curated and deeply personal. This wasn’t some random destination wedding with a Vogue shoot tacked on. It was a painstakingly crafted narrative.
Paris made sense, Kim and Kanye were fashion-obsessed, and Paris Fashion Week was their red carpet. They were front row. They were in it. Florence, we later learned, was where their daughter North was conceived. That detail turned what could’ve been a rich-person location flex into something intimate, even romantic. And then there was Versailles, the site of their rehearsal dinner, a deliberately imperial choice that positioned them as pop-cultural royalty. It wasn’t subtle. It wasn’t supposed to be. It was about legacy wrapped in gilded historic grandeur.
And the aesthetic? Tasteful. Thought out. Kanye commissioned a massive Carrara marble table for the reception. Riccardo Tisci designed Kim’s dress. The guest list was curated like an art exhibit, full of industry insiders and cultural players. This was a cultural event with layers and textures that made sense.
Yes they were showing off but at the same time they weren’t just showing off; they were performing an aspirational lifestyle that millions could obsess over, analyze, and replicate in mini ways online. That wedding birthed endless memes, think pieces, and viral moments. It was maximal but meaningful. It had context.
Venice, however, had no narrative in the Sánchez-Bezos wedding. It was the background, a luxury prop for a story Venice didn’t ask to be part of.
The city did not greet the event with open arms. As Jeff Bezos and Lauren Sánchez exchanged vows, a few hundred protesters gathered at the Venice train station on the following day with one clear message: “Bezos, f**k off,” and “Out of our lagoon!” They chanted in Italian, their voices rippling through the ancient city like a wave of defiance.

Venetian locals like 22-year-old Sofia D’Amato made it clear that this was not about envy. “We are not jealous of the fact that he earns so much money,” she told CNN. “We are jealous when his wealth hits us in the face.”
That wealth hit hard. The wedding reportedly cost $55 million. While Sánchez and Bezos pledged a combined €3 million to three Venetian cultural institutions, D’Amato dismissed the donations as “paltry” compared to the spectacle and disruption inflicted upon the city.
Protesters didn’t just express resentment toward Bezos’s private wealth, they drew stark contrasts between that opulence and the struggles of Amazon workers. One woman, identifying herself as an Amazon employee, shouted into the crowd, “We can barely pay the rent. Many of us come from far away to reach the warehouse… We don’t see these millions.”
The march, which moved through the city’s iconic bridges and squares, was a kaleidoscope of political symbolism: Palestinian flags, pride flags, anti-fascist banners, and Venice’s traditional red standard. Some even modified the golden lion on the Venetian flag to wear a black balaclava, an unmistakable symbol of resistance.
Predictably, city officials were quick to condemn the protests. In a press release, Venice’s municipal government called the demonstrations “ridiculous” and “grotesque,” dismissing opposition as “folklore of ‘No to everything.’” Their statement claimed that “contesting a wedding (any wedding) is already ridiculous in itself,” as if the billionaires’ invasion was the natural order, and dissent a bizarre outlier.
But for many Venetians, this wasn’t just a wedding to protest, it was a painful reminder of how their city is commodified and controlled by the ultra-rich, at the expense of everyday life.
There’s something oddly fascinating about Lauren Sánchez’s entire trajectory leading up to this wedding. The soft launches. The yacht wardrobe. The increasingly intentional paparazzi strolls. The Paris bachelorette that felt like a Vogue World afterparty with bigger bank accounts. She wasn’t just planning a wedding, she was orchestrating a character arc.
But if the wedding itself was a fantasy no one asked for, the Vogue coverage was the hallucination that followed. Behind it all, the unmistakable hand of Anna Wintour, who still seems to believe that a Vogue feature has the power to manufacture cultural relevance.
But this time, she didn’t just co-sign the narrative, she helped script it. According to reports, Wintour personally advised Lauren Sánchez on which designer to choose for her wedding dress. That wasn’t just a fashion favor. That was the ultimate act of legacy media meddling, as if the right label could turn a billionaire yacht wife into a main character. Wintour, still clinging to the idea that her blessing carries myth-making power, anointed Sánchez with the same institutional pomp once reserved for actual icons.
The thing is, everyone involved in this coverage fundamentally misunderstood who reads Vogue in 2025, especially online. Today’s audience is digital-native, hyper-aware, and deeply fluent in the language of spin. We know when we’re being sold something. And in this case, the product was Lauren Sánchez: aggressively packaged, horrifically over-styled, and force-fed down our throats like a satin-wrapped ad for moneyed mediocrity.
These people aren’t aspirational. They’re not even neutral. They’re actively loathed.
And yes, sure, you could compare this to the backlash when Kim Kardashian got her first Vogue cover. But that outrage was alive. That cover mattered. It arrived right as social media was exploding. Thirst was aspirational. The vibe was peak maximalism. KimYe were the zeitgeist. Whether you loved them or hated them, you were watching.
Jeff and Lauren wanted that. Desperately. But what they staged in Venice wasn’t a cultural coronation, it was a hollow production for people who still think “rich” means “interesting.”
There’s no iconography. No real story. Just a swarm of strategists hovering off-camera in the lagoon.
The difference between a moment and a media stunt is simple: one has soul. This had scheduling.
If Vogue still thinks it can manufacture buzz by throwing up carefully curated wedding posts on Instagram, the comments sections say otherwise. Scroll through any of the ten posts Vogue put up about the Sánchez-Bezos wedding, and you’ll find a consistent theme: anger, disgust, and outright mockery.
Comments like “Who asked?” “So tone-deaf,” “More billionaires ruining the world,” and simply “No one cares” flood every post. The wedding has become a lightning rod for frustrations about wealth inequality, entitlement, and the performative exhaustion of these ultra-rich pageants. It’s a digital rebellion against being sold a fairy tale that feels increasingly grotesque and irrelevant.
The optics are impossible to ignore: a billionaire wedding in Venice, a city suffocated by luxury excess, doubling as a sort of political power mixer for America’s richest, regardless of the ideologies they champion. It’s a reminder of how the ultra-wealthy consolidate influence behind closed doors, far from the consequences their politics inflict on everyday people.
The only real moment of truth in this entire circus didn’t come from Sánchez or Bezos. It came from the Venetians protesting on boats. From the clips of locals being rerouted around security barricades so that billionaires in sunglasses could glide through canals in peace. From the quiet rage of a city that’s been turned into a playground for the ultra-rich, now forced to host their mythmaking rituals.
This wasn’t a wedding. It was a symptom. A symptom of just how far removed the 1% has become from the rest of us and how tone-deaf our media class still is when it comes to documenting them.
Lauren wanted her Kim moment. She got her Marie Antoinette moment instead.
As for Vogue? It’s still playing prestige dress-up in a world that already left the party. The rest of us are rolling our eyes, wondering how many more of these billionaire Barbie weddings we’ll be forced to endure before the fantasy fully collapses.
They barricaded the protesters out of Venice, shutting down dissent with walls and security.
Me? I got blocked on Instagram. Turns out the easiest way to silence a critic in 2025 is just one click away.
{
"article":
{
"title" : "The Wedding That Ate Venice",
"author" : "Louis Pisano",
"category" : "essays",
"url" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/readings/wedding-that-ate-venice",
"date" : "2025-06-30 11:01:00 -0400",
"img" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/uploads/EIP_LaurenSanchez.jpg",
"excerpt" : "It wasn’t just a wedding. It was an occupation.",
"content" : "It wasn’t just a wedding. It was an occupation.For a few deeply strange days in late June, Venice ceased being a city and became a film set, one where no one knew what movie was being made, who the audience was supposed to be, or why the lead actress had clearly studied every frame of Kim Kardashian’s wedding content like it was an NFL playbook. Lauren Sánchez, the new Mrs. Bezos, didn’t just get married. She tried to canonize herself.And she had a plan. There was a glitzy bachelorette party in Paris. A carefully stage managed sunset cruise down the Seine under the hum of drones. There was a wedding in Italy, just like Kim. There was a Vogue exclusive, albeit digital, complete with a dolce-vita wannabe shoot in her Sophia Loren inspired Dolce & Gabbana wedding gown. And in perhaps the most surreal flourish, Sánchez booked Matteo Bocelli, son of Andrea Bocelli yes, the same Andrea who famously sang at Kim and Kanye’s wedding in Florence.This is not a coincidence. This is scripting. This is someone trying very, very hard to manufacture a wedding-as-moment.What she failed to realize is that it is no longer 2014. The culture has changed, the fantasy has expired, and Lauren Sánchez is not Kim Kardashian. She doesn’t have the influence, the intrigue, or the irony like the kind Kanye West once knew how to manufacture, art-directing a wedding that felt both sincerely grand and wryly self-aware. She has money and a lot of it but no myth. And that’s the problem.To understand just how off Lauren Sánchez’s wedding was, you have to go back to the one she was clearly copying: Kim and Kanye, 2014, the wedding that practically invented the modern celebrity ceremony.Say what you want about KimYe, but that wedding made an impact on the culture. Optimized for virality: high/low, couture-meets-chaos, social media bait wrapped in Givenchy. From the Parisian pre-wedding fits to the Florence ceremony staged in front of a crumbling fortress, everything was hyper-curated and deeply personal. This wasn’t some random destination wedding with a Vogue shoot tacked on. It was a painstakingly crafted narrative.Paris made sense, Kim and Kanye were fashion-obsessed, and Paris Fashion Week was their red carpet. They were front row. They were in it. Florence, we later learned, was where their daughter North was conceived. That detail turned what could’ve been a rich-person location flex into something intimate, even romantic. And then there was Versailles, the site of their rehearsal dinner, a deliberately imperial choice that positioned them as pop-cultural royalty. It wasn’t subtle. It wasn’t supposed to be. It was about legacy wrapped in gilded historic grandeur.And the aesthetic? Tasteful. Thought out. Kanye commissioned a massive Carrara marble table for the reception. Riccardo Tisci designed Kim’s dress. The guest list was curated like an art exhibit, full of industry insiders and cultural players. This was a cultural event with layers and textures that made sense.Yes they were showing off but at the same time they weren’t just showing off; they were performing an aspirational lifestyle that millions could obsess over, analyze, and replicate in mini ways online. That wedding birthed endless memes, think pieces, and viral moments. It was maximal but meaningful. It had context.Venice, however, had no narrative in the Sánchez-Bezos wedding. It was the background, a luxury prop for a story Venice didn’t ask to be part of.The city did not greet the event with open arms. As Jeff Bezos and Lauren Sánchez exchanged vows, a few hundred protesters gathered at the Venice train station on the following day with one clear message: “Bezos, f**k off,” and “Out of our lagoon!” They chanted in Italian, their voices rippling through the ancient city like a wave of defiance.Venetian locals like 22-year-old Sofia D’Amato made it clear that this was not about envy. “We are not jealous of the fact that he earns so much money,” she told CNN. “We are jealous when his wealth hits us in the face.”That wealth hit hard. The wedding reportedly cost $55 million. While Sánchez and Bezos pledged a combined €3 million to three Venetian cultural institutions, D’Amato dismissed the donations as “paltry” compared to the spectacle and disruption inflicted upon the city.Protesters didn’t just express resentment toward Bezos’s private wealth, they drew stark contrasts between that opulence and the struggles of Amazon workers. One woman, identifying herself as an Amazon employee, shouted into the crowd, “We can barely pay the rent. Many of us come from far away to reach the warehouse… We don’t see these millions.”The march, which moved through the city’s iconic bridges and squares, was a kaleidoscope of political symbolism: Palestinian flags, pride flags, anti-fascist banners, and Venice’s traditional red standard. Some even modified the golden lion on the Venetian flag to wear a black balaclava, an unmistakable symbol of resistance.Predictably, city officials were quick to condemn the protests. In a press release, Venice’s municipal government called the demonstrations “ridiculous” and “grotesque,” dismissing opposition as “folklore of ‘No to everything.’” Their statement claimed that “contesting a wedding (any wedding) is already ridiculous in itself,” as if the billionaires’ invasion was the natural order, and dissent a bizarre outlier.But for many Venetians, this wasn’t just a wedding to protest, it was a painful reminder of how their city is commodified and controlled by the ultra-rich, at the expense of everyday life.There’s something oddly fascinating about Lauren Sánchez’s entire trajectory leading up to this wedding. The soft launches. The yacht wardrobe. The increasingly intentional paparazzi strolls. The Paris bachelorette that felt like a Vogue World afterparty with bigger bank accounts. She wasn’t just planning a wedding, she was orchestrating a character arc.But if the wedding itself was a fantasy no one asked for, the Vogue coverage was the hallucination that followed. Behind it all, the unmistakable hand of Anna Wintour, who still seems to believe that a Vogue feature has the power to manufacture cultural relevance.But this time, she didn’t just co-sign the narrative, she helped script it. According to reports, Wintour personally advised Lauren Sánchez on which designer to choose for her wedding dress. That wasn’t just a fashion favor. That was the ultimate act of legacy media meddling, as if the right label could turn a billionaire yacht wife into a main character. Wintour, still clinging to the idea that her blessing carries myth-making power, anointed Sánchez with the same institutional pomp once reserved for actual icons.The thing is, everyone involved in this coverage fundamentally misunderstood who reads Vogue in 2025, especially online. Today’s audience is digital-native, hyper-aware, and deeply fluent in the language of spin. We know when we’re being sold something. And in this case, the product was Lauren Sánchez: aggressively packaged, horrifically over-styled, and force-fed down our throats like a satin-wrapped ad for moneyed mediocrity.These people aren’t aspirational. They’re not even neutral. They’re actively loathed.And yes, sure, you could compare this to the backlash when Kim Kardashian got her first Vogue cover. But that outrage was alive. That cover mattered. It arrived right as social media was exploding. Thirst was aspirational. The vibe was peak maximalism. KimYe were the zeitgeist. Whether you loved them or hated them, you were watching.Jeff and Lauren wanted that. Desperately. But what they staged in Venice wasn’t a cultural coronation, it was a hollow production for people who still think “rich” means “interesting.”There’s no iconography. No real story. Just a swarm of strategists hovering off-camera in the lagoon.The difference between a moment and a media stunt is simple: one has soul. This had scheduling.If Vogue still thinks it can manufacture buzz by throwing up carefully curated wedding posts on Instagram, the comments sections say otherwise. Scroll through any of the ten posts Vogue put up about the Sánchez-Bezos wedding, and you’ll find a consistent theme: anger, disgust, and outright mockery.Comments like “Who asked?” “So tone-deaf,” “More billionaires ruining the world,” and simply “No one cares” flood every post. The wedding has become a lightning rod for frustrations about wealth inequality, entitlement, and the performative exhaustion of these ultra-rich pageants. It’s a digital rebellion against being sold a fairy tale that feels increasingly grotesque and irrelevant.The optics are impossible to ignore: a billionaire wedding in Venice, a city suffocated by luxury excess, doubling as a sort of political power mixer for America’s richest, regardless of the ideologies they champion. It’s a reminder of how the ultra-wealthy consolidate influence behind closed doors, far from the consequences their politics inflict on everyday people.The only real moment of truth in this entire circus didn’t come from Sánchez or Bezos. It came from the Venetians protesting on boats. From the clips of locals being rerouted around security barricades so that billionaires in sunglasses could glide through canals in peace. From the quiet rage of a city that’s been turned into a playground for the ultra-rich, now forced to host their mythmaking rituals.This wasn’t a wedding. It was a symptom. A symptom of just how far removed the 1% has become from the rest of us and how tone-deaf our media class still is when it comes to documenting them.Lauren wanted her Kim moment. She got her Marie Antoinette moment instead.As for Vogue? It’s still playing prestige dress-up in a world that already left the party. The rest of us are rolling our eyes, wondering how many more of these billionaire Barbie weddings we’ll be forced to endure before the fantasy fully collapses.They barricaded the protesters out of Venice, shutting down dissent with walls and security.Me? I got blocked on Instagram. Turns out the easiest way to silence a critic in 2025 is just one click away."
}
,
"relatedposts": [
{
"title" : "Who is COP for, really?",
"author" : "Keyah Hanwi",
"category" : "essays",
"url" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/readings/who-is-cop-for-really",
"date" : "2025-11-07 09:00:00 -0500",
"img" : "https://everythingispolitical.com",
"excerpt" : "For thirty years, the world has looked at COP as the path to climate progress. But the reality is different. COP isn’t failing; it’s working exactly as it was designed: protecting and further producing capital.",
"content" : "For thirty years, the world has looked at COP as the path to climate progress. But the reality is different. COP isn’t failing; it’s working exactly as it was designed: protecting and further producing capital.COP has made promises it never intended to keep. It is not about saving the planet, but about protecting profit and power. COP3 was the beginning of the Global North making broken promises. At COP3, the Kyoto Protocol was proposed as a plan to target emissions cuts from industrialized countries. The agreement paved the way for carbon markets, allowing countries and corporations to trade pollution credits instead of actually cutting emissions. The U.S. signed but never ratified it (source), Canada later withdrew (source). Europe met targets in part by outsourcing oil emissions through offsets, often harming and displacing frontline communities (source). What came out of COP3 was not climate justice but a system that let the Global North maintain its power and profit while exporting the consequences.The broken promises of Kyoto set the blueprint for decades of destructive extraction and dispossession that followed. The Global South is not a side note; it is the beating heart of the climate crisis and the first to bleed. While wealthy countries build their prosperity on fossil fuels, the Global South faces devastating man-made ‘natural disasters’ floods, fires, and droughts. These communities continue to fight to protect land, water, and futures, even as rich nations push “net zero by 2050” while backing fossil fuel interests. Promised climate finance remains late, insufficient, and often deepens debt, while Indigenous leaders and frontline activists are routinely excluded from decision-making.Decades later, those same dynamics played out in Glasgow during COP26, which ignited a surge of fossil fuel industry influence and greenwashing. While earlier COPs like COP3 set the foundation, COP26 made it impossible to ignore who these summits are really for. Over 500 fossil fuel lobbyists were present, more than any country’s single delegation, and more than the total number of representatives from the most climate vulnerable nations combined (source).This was not a flaw in the process. This was the process. Inside the Blue Zone, oil executives and carbon traders ran panels while Indigenous people were shut out. The industries fueling climate collapse were prioritized. Frontline communities were left with surveillance, side events, or silence. COP26 didn’t just accommodate fossil fuel power, it handed it a badge and a microphone. Oil companies secured deeper access through sponsorships and side events, pushing carbon markets and voluntary commitments instead of binding action.At COP28, there were approximately 2,456 fossil fuel lobbyists, over 900 more than the total number of delegates from the ten most climate vulnerable countries, which numbered around 1,500 (source). Indigenous people and other climate activists made up only a small fraction of that number. The UAE’s state oil company had access to summit emails (source), while COP28 president Sultan Ahmed Al Jaber used his power to pursue $100 billion in oil and gas deals (source).During COP29 the fossil fuel industry dominated the conversation. They bought access by sponsoring events, and shaped the entire agenda. Chevron, BP, ExxonMobil, Shell, Glencore and TotalEnergies pushed carbon trading schemes and false climate solutions while the planet burned (source). This was never about protecting the environment. Indigenous and frontline activists were pushed aside and silenced. COP29 made it clear: these summits serve capital, not people. COP30 is accelerating the greenwashing that is central to COP.As the international spotlight shines on the Amazon, the greenwashing only intensifies. From November 10-21 COP30 will take place in Belém, the capital of Pará, Brazil in the heart of the Amazon. The summit is being presented as a milestone for climate action while politicians fast track the destruction of the environment. During a visit to Pará in August 2023, President Lula said: “I leave Pará with the certainty that we are going to hold the best COP in history (source). But what is the reality? What does COP30 mean for the people actually living in the Amazon? Who is it really for?As COP30 draws attention to the Amazon, corporate greenwashing takes many forms. On September 17th, the mining company Vale S.A. and Rock in Rio hosted the music festival “Amazon Forever” (source). The festival was a thinly veiled attempt to sanitize the image of a mining giant with a legacy of poisoning and displacing Indigenous communities in Indonesia (source) and the Brazilian Amazon. In February 2025, Brazil’s Federal Prosecutor’s Office filed a lawsuit against Vale, the Brazilian government, and the state of Pará over heavy metal contamination found in the Xikrin Indigenous people. A Federal University of Pará study revealed dangerously high levels of lead, mercury, and nickel in the hair of nearly all 720 individuals surveyed in the Xikrin do Cateté Indigenous Territory.This contamination is linked to Vale’s nickel mining operations at Onça-Puma, which polluted the Cateté River, a vital water source for the community. Despite an agreement in 2022 for monthly compensation, health concerns were unaddressed, prompting legal action demanding a permanent health monitoring program and environmental oversight. Vale disputes responsibility, claiming its operations aren’t to blame and that it monitors water quality around its sites (source).In Pará, a COP30 project called Nova Doca dumps waste in poor Black neighborhoods while sewage systems serve the rich. Untreated sewage flows into local waters. This is environmental racism masked by greenwashing (source).The contradictions run so deep that even sacred guardians are being turned into COP30’s mascot. Curupira, a forest guardian whose feet face backwards to mislead hunters and invaders, has been chosen as the official mascot for COP30 (source). This choice feels like a mockery of Curupira. The government is pushing laws opening the door for land grabs, extraction, and displacement. Forests continue to burn. Curupira is not a mascot. Curupira does not forgive those who harm the forest. He takes revenge, and many attending COP30 would be the exact people he would take revenge on.COP30 is sold as a celebration of the Amazon, but the laws and destructive projects being pushed through tell a different story. The government fast tracked construction of Avenida Liberdade, a four lane highway that will cut through Indigenous and Quilombola territories (source).Quilombola are descendants of enslaved Africans who made Brazil their home, preserving their culture and freedom in remote areas. They have distinct identities and legal rights to their lands, which are constantly threatened by land grabs and development. They have stood in mutual solidarity with Indigenous peoples in Brazil, fighting together to defend their territories and cultures against exploitation.In Brazil, highways often cut through these lands. BR-163 cuts through Pará and Mato Grosso, built to move soy and used by land grabbers and illegal loggers. BR-319, set to be repaved through the Amazon, threatens dozens of communities with invasion and displacement. These roads don’t bring protection or progress, they bring violence and destruction. One recent incident occurred in December 2024, when Guarani Kaiowá and Terena communities protesting for basic access to drinking water faced violent repression by police forces who could quickly mobilize thanks to these roads (source). Such infrastructure facilitates state violence against Indigenous resistance, widening the threats faced by these communities.As a Lakota, seeing brutalization of Guarani Kaiowá and Terena at the hands of military police for protesting for water painfully echoed the fight at Standing Rock. Water is sacred. Water is life. Violence is no accident, it’s embedded into law.Indigenous and Quilombola territories remain under threat and await proper demarcation. The Brazilian Senate passed bills that threaten land rights. In May, they approved PL 2159/21, the Devastation Bill, which dismantles Brazil’s environmental licensing system, making it easier for corporations to push through destructive projects. It accelerates deforestation, putting 32.6% of Indigenous lands and 80.1% of Quilombola territories at risk. On the final day permitted by law, President Lula vetoed 63 of the bill’s nearly 400 provisions, including clauses that would have allowed medium-impact projects to bypass full environmental review and provisions that would have excluded Indigenous and Quilombola communities from consultation. While these vetoes preserve some environmental protections, the law still allows the federal government to accelerate certain ‘strategic’ projects, leaving communities and ecosystems at continued risk (source).Lula recently approved an offshore oil drilling project near the mouth of the Amazon River, signaling continued support for fossil fuel extraction even as COP30 approaches (source). This decision highlights the tension between Brazil’s role as host of a major climate summit and its ongoing promotion of environmentally destructive projects. Days after the Senate approved the Devastation Bill, PL 717/24 was approved (source). If it becomes law, it would suspend the demarcation of Indigenous and Quilombola lands, including Imbuh and Morro dos Cavalos.In April, after decades of struggle, the Guarani Mbya finally had Morro dos Cavalos officially recognized, but that recognition is already under threat.Helder Barbalho, Governor of Pará, is a driving force behind many issues linked to COP30. Under his administration, public funds are funneled into symbolic projects like fake metal trees in Belém, while forests are cleared for the Avenida Liberdade highway, which cuts through Indigenous and Quilombola territories. He inherited a political machine built to protect elites and reward exploitation from his father.Barbalho is using the summit to push the lie of his self-proclaimed title of “Green Governor.” In September 2024, during New York Climate Week, he made a $180 million carbon credit deal with the LEAF Coalition, involving Amazon and the Walmart Foundation. Helder claimed Indigenous participation, but 38 organizations from Pará publicly denounced the lack of consultation. The deal, aiming to sell 12 million tons of credits, faces legal challenges for violating Brazilian law and pre-selling carbon without consulting them (source).Barbalho drapes himself in the image of the Amazon while pushing its destruction through agribusiness, mining, logging, and infrastructure. His inherited corruption fuels land grabbing and deforestation. According to his 2022 disclosure, he owns over 6,000 head of cattle valued at about $2.87 million (combining $2.5 million for cattle and $370,000 share in Agropecuária Rio Branco), with total assets near $3.9 million (source).The hypocrisy of politicians like Barbalho, who present themselves as champions of the environment, mirrors what happens on the global stage, just as what Txai Suruí, an Indigenous leader and activist from Brazil experienced during COP16, the United Nations Biodiversity Conference held in Cali, Colombia in 2024. While COP16 focused on biodiversity under the Convention on Biological Diversity process, COP30 continues that agenda under a different frame. Both are UN environmental summits addressing overlapping and inseparable issues.At COP16, Txai Suruí was protesting against Marco Temporal, a dangerous, anti-Indigenous legal argument in Brazil that threatens Indigenous land rights by claiming only lands occupied before 1988 should be recognized. All of Brazil is, and always has been Indigenous land. During the protest, she described how a UN security guard grabbed her arm. “She grabbed me by the arm and my hands are painted red, which symbolizes our blood. And she said: you got me dirty. Then she twisted my arm. That’s when I started screaming for help. I was scared, I didn’t expect it.” According to Txai, she and other activists had their badges forcibly removed and they were detained in a COP security room (source). Txai and other protesters complied with demands, but they were still met with violence and detained, having their badges temporarily stripped. This violence and repression illustrate the ongoing struggles Indigenous peoples face, not only politically with attacks like Marco Temporal but also physically, even within international forums that claim to protect biodiversity and the climate.As Indigenous leaders continue to resist the corporate and political forces shaping COP30, their frustration is expressed in clear and uncompromising words. Auricélia Arapiuns, president of COIAB (Coordenação das Organizações Indígenas da Amazônia Brasileira), stated:“COP30 is as much a farce as the Governor of this state, who is a farce. And it’s a farce that attacks the rights of Indigenous peoples and nature every day.”Her words capture the deep mistrust many Indigenous peoples hold toward a summit that claims to protect the Amazon while allowing continued exploitation.Aílton Krenak, Indigenous leader and philosopher, has criticized the use of the Amazon as symbolic cover for climate inaction. In an interview with Cenarium in February 2025, he stated: “The Amazon cannot be the symbol of COP30. It is the territory where this global event will take place, but it will very likely come at a high social cost. I do not imagine that local communities will receive direct benefits from this event.” He warned that turning the Amazon into a symbol erases the lives, cultures, and resistance of its peoples, substituting deep structural justice with superficial branding. For Krenak, framing the Amazon as a symbol while extractive policies continue is not just cynical. It is a betrayal of the forest’s living communities and ancestral knowledge.Alessandra Korap Munduruku has called COP30 what it is: a violation and a betrayal of land and people. At TEDxAmazônia in Belém, she denounced COP30 and the empty promises behind the summit:“We realize that we, Indigenous peoples, are sick because of mining, because of mercury. Every time we sit with researchers, they say women’s breast milk is contaminated with mercury, women’s wombs are contaminated with mercury. This shouldn’t exist. But what solution will they bring? Will COP bring this solution?”“We know it’s 30 years of COP, but what we see is a COP of business, agreements, parties, festivals, not solving the problems happening in the territory. They are trying to erase us, but we keep fighting, speaking, shouting, so they hear the needs of Indigenous peoples, Quilombola peoples, and traditional peoples. It is our duty to shout, and their obligation to act.” Korap is not just rejecting commodification. She is naming the lie: the Amazon is being used to sell the illusion of climate justice, while the people who have defended it for generations are silenced, sidelined, or sold out.COP30, like its predecessors, must be scrutinized through this lens. Indigenous peoples continue to resist both political and physical violence while fighting to protect their territories and ways of life. You cannot talk about climate justice while threatening the rights of the people who have protected these ecosystems for centuries. You cannot continue to exploit and exclude the Global South while pushing false solutions, deepening debt, and criminalizing resistance."
}
,
{
"title" : "The Real Test for Zohran Mamdani—and the Rest of Us",
"author" : "Collis Browne",
"category" : "essays",
"url" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/readings/the-real-test-for-zohran-mamdani-and-the-rest-of-us",
"date" : "2025-11-06 11:39:00 -0500",
"img" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/uploads/Zohran-bridge-parade.jpg",
"excerpt" : "“We have toppled a political dynasty,” Zohran Mamdani, mayor-elect of New York City, triumphantly exclaimed during his victory speech late Tuesday night, Nov. 4, in Brooklyn, NY. After a year-long arduous campaign against disgraced former NY governor, Andrew Cuomo, Mamdani’s win feels historic—because it is. One only needed to feel the energy in NYC on election night to understand the gravity of its importance: a palpable hope, inspiring people across the ideological spectrum and around the world that someone can boldly challenge the corrupt political and economic status quo and win.",
"content" : "“We have toppled a political dynasty,” Zohran Mamdani, mayor-elect of New York City, triumphantly exclaimed during his victory speech late Tuesday night, Nov. 4, in Brooklyn, NY. After a year-long arduous campaign against disgraced former NY governor, Andrew Cuomo, Mamdani’s win feels historic—because it is. One only needed to feel the energy in NYC on election night to understand the gravity of its importance: a palpable hope, inspiring people across the ideological spectrum and around the world that someone can boldly challenge the corrupt political and economic status quo and win.But here’s the thing: while Mamdani’s win is certainly encouraging, no one should be surprised by it. The overwhelming majority of the global population is bound by a shared experience of being crushed by corporate capitalism and its stranglehold on governments and the people. So any politician aiming to do literally anything to oppose corruption and economic exploitation already has an advantage. Mamdani’s message was simple, and it spoke to the majority. It was “The Rent is Too Damn High” for a new generation, without the satire, and it worked. (Not to mention, he’s charming.)But now the harder part actually starts: the work that it takes to create change. Not only for Mamdani—but for us, too.The pushback from Republicans and establishment Democrats alike is going to be strong and sustained. And they will come together to sabotage this movement with every tool they have in city hall, in the media, and elsewhere.They will try, like they do with the majority of progressive politicians, to neutralize the threat Mamdani poses to the status quo: first, by sabotaging his efforts to enact his agenda. (We’ve seen this happen with Brandon Johnson, the current mayor of Chicago, who ran on a progressive platform and has received major pushback from establishment politicians.) Second, by sustaining a lengthy war of attrition on Mamdani’s morals against the status quo and corrupt systems, wearing him down into submission. More sinisterly, Republicans may even try to co-opt this message. Conservative businessman and former U.S. presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy’s response to Mamdani’s win was, “We got our a** handed to us; … Our side needs to focus on affordability.”If this forces a broader focus on economic equality, great. But more likely, it could signal a path to hollow out a truly progressive agenda with more lies and lip service.Despite all of these obstacles, Mamdani still has a number of cards that he can play to create change.Immediately, he can make several new appointments and key hires in city government: Deputy Mayors, commissioners of more than 80 departments and agencies like DOT, DOE, NYPD, FDNY, DEP, DSNY; Rent Guidelines Board (RGB) for rent freezes or reductions; City Planning Commission (CPC) which has huge power over housing justice; Taxi & Limousine Commission (TLC) which regulates rideshare and taxi workers; the Board of Correction (BOC), an oversight body that is crucial to a decarceration agenda; the Economic Development Corporation (EDC) which controls billions in contracts, development projects, and waterfront property; the Workforce Development Board which shapes labor policy, job programs, and union partnerships; and even the Head of the NYC Law Department, who could change the city’s litigation strategies to drop harmful suits, defend protesters, or pursue housing violations.All these major systems can begin to immediately implement a more egalitarian and justice-based progressive agenda. He can also freeze the rent for millions of New Yorkers by appointing supportive members to the Rent Board (provided Eric Adams doesn’t replace all the members with expired terms before his official tenure in December). He can certainly enact the city-run grocery stores, and use the kluge that the Trump administration is using à go-go— the Executive Order—to fast-track some of his policies.But there are three crucial things he can’t do alone and where we, as constituents, cannot take a back seat. He will not be able to get a budget passed in the City Council without citizen pressure on their local borough presidents and city council members. He will also not be able to get a 2% tax hike on the ultra-wealthy passed in Albany or make buses free without Gov. Kathy Hochul’s support. (Hochul, being a notorious establishment Democrat, might give him trouble on this.)Yes, he won, and that is great news. Let’s celebrate it. But this can’t be politics “as usual.” Now, we who pledged our support for these policies must show up and make it clear to the rest of the political system that our demands must be met."
}
,
{
"title" : "Black Liberation Views on Palestine",
"author" : "EIP Editors",
"category" : "essays",
"url" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/readings/black-liberation-on-palestine",
"date" : "2025-10-17 09:01:00 -0400",
"img" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/uploads/mandela-keffiyeh.jpg",
"excerpt" : "",
"content" : "In understanding global politics, it is important to look at Black liberation struggles as one important source of moral perspective. So, when looking at Palestine, we look to Black leaders to see how they perceived the Palestinian struggle in relation to theirs, from the 1960’s to today.Why must we understand where the injustice lies? Because, as Desmond Tutu famously said, “If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.”{% for person in site.data.quotes-black-liberation-palestine %}{{ person.name }}{% for quote in person.quotes %}“{{ quote.text }}”{% if quote.source %}— {{ quote.source }}{% endif %}{% endfor %}{% endfor %}"
}
]
}