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" : "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."
}
]
}