MIM(Prisons) is a cell of revolutionaries serving the oppressed masses inside U.$. prisons, guided by the communist ideology of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.
www.prisoncensorship.info is a media institution run by the Maoist Internationalist Ministry of Prisons. Here we collect and publicize reports of conditions behind the bars in U.$. prisons. Information about these incidents rarely makes it out of the prison, and when it does it is extremely rare that the reports are taken seriously and published. This historical record is important for documenting patterns of abuse, and also for informing people on the streets about what goes on behind the bars.
I come to you today with news of an epidemic here at my home prison and
prisons across the United $nakes of Amerika. I find myself amongst those
who are seriously mentally ill. I’m in a step down program called the
Residential Treatment Unit (RTU), where I will be housed for at least 90
days. I’m stepping down from a control unit called the Secure
Residential Treatment Unit (SRTU). I’m finally in general population
after four consecutive years in a control unit, AKA solitary
confinement.
I look around me with disgust ,not at the people but the warehousing of
the severely mentally ill. I wonder, why are most of these people even
in jail. These people belong in a mental hospital, receiving treatment,
not punishment. Oh, yeah, that’s right, the Obama administration closed
most of the state psychiatric facilities and deemed it appropriate to
warehouse these poor people in prison, under the guise of mental health
treatment units.
Prison is prison, regardless of what you choose to label it. And the
pigs treat these people with hate and contempt, abusing them verbally
and sometimes physically. It sickens me. Anyone who defends capitalism,
imperialism and the prison industrial complex are sadistic fools.
Clearly this system is not working. Clearly, now more than ever, do we
need an armed revolution and dictatorship of the proletariat. I will
continue to struggle against oppression. I will die with these words on
my lips: resist, resist, resist. I will have no peace until the
liberation bells sound loud and clear, music to my ears.
Locked In: the true causes of mass incarceration - and how to
achieve real reform by John F. Pfaff 2017 Basic
Books
With over 2 million people behind bars, Amerikkka locks up more people
per capita than any other nation in the world. But within this system of
mass imprisonment there is an even more striking story of national
oppression: New Afrikans locked up at 5 times the rate of whites, and
Chican@s and First Nations also locked up at disproportionately high
rates. We might hope that a book about the true causes of mass
incarceration (and how to achieve real reform!) would address this
discrepancy. But Pfaff, like all good bourgeois scholars, is focused on
how to make capitalism work better. And so ey sweeps this whole issue
under the rug in a book that offers some really good science and
statistics on imprisonment. Here we will pull out the useful facts and
frame them in a revolutionary context.
Overall Locked In does a good job of exposing some important
facts and statistics often ignored by prison researchers. Pfaff attacks
what ey calls the “Standard Story.” This is the name ey gives to the
common arguments anti-prison activists make, which ey believes are
counter-productive to their (and eir own) goals of prison reform. Ey
claims these arguments either over simplify, or are straight up wrong,
about why we have so many prisoners in the United $tates, and as a
result target the wrong solutions.
The big picture
Pfaff sometimes gets lost in the details and fails to look at the big
picture. For instance, ey argues that “we are a nation of either 50 or
3,144 distinct criminal justice systems” talking about the big
differences in how each state and even each county deals with
prosecution, sentencing and prisons.(p. 16) While it is true there are
significant differences, this thinking evades the importance of looking
at the big picture that it’s no coincidence that so many distinct
counties/states have such high rates of imprisonment in this country.
It’s a good idea to examine state and county level differences, and
learn lessons from this. But using this information in the interests of
the oppressed requires an understanding of the underlying role of the
Amerikkkan criminal injustice system in social control and national
oppression, the topic Pfaff studiously avoids.
In one of eir rare references to the role that nation plays in the
criminal injustice system in the United $tates, Pfaff bemoans that
“Obviously, effecting ‘cultural change’ is a very difficult
task.”(p. 228) Ey entirely misses the fundamental national oppression
going on in this country. To him it’s just about attitudes and cultural
change.
Pfaff does raise some good big picture questions that scientific
capitalists and communists alike need to consider. Discussing the
importance of balancing the cost of crime against the costs of
enforcement Pfaff asks “what the optimal level of crime should be.” “Why
is crime control inherently more important than education or medical
research or public health?” “What if a reduction in prison populations
would allow 100,000 children with at least one parent in prison to now
have both parents at home, but at a cost of a 5 percent rise in
aggravated assaults (or even some number of additional murders) – is
this a fair tradeoff, even assuming no other criminal justice benefits
(like lower future offending rates among these children)?” But Pfaff
notes that politicians in the United $tates are not able to talk about
these things. Even Bernie Sanders’s discussion of investing more in
schools and less in prisons was in the context of reducing crime more
efficiently. It’s just not okay to say education should be prioritized
over crime control.(p. 119) And so Pfaff concludes that we must work on
reforms that can be implemented within this severely restricted
political system. We see this as evidence that the system will never
allow significant change.
Another place where Pfaff frames the larger context in useful and
scientific ways is around the question of why people commit crimes.
While ey dances around the social causes of crime, Pfaff offers some
good analysis about how people age out of crime. And this analysis leads
to eir position that we shouldn’t be calling people “violent offenders”
but instead just saying they have committed violent crimes. Data shows
that most people commit crimes when young, and as they age they are far
less likely to do so again.
Crime rates and imprisonment rates
Pfaff is a professor of law at Fordham University, and like people
working within the capitalist system ey accepts the capitalist
definitions of crime. This means ey ignores the biggest criminals: those
conducting wars of aggression and plunder against other nations in the
interests of profit. For the purposes of this review we will use the
term crime as Pfaff does in eir book, to refer to
bourgeois-defined crime.
Crime rates in the U.$. grew in the 1970s and early 1980s. Pfaff
believes that “rising incarceration helped stem the rise in
crime.”(p. 10) Disappointingly ey doesn’t put much work in to proving
this thesis. But at least ey concedes that locking up more people may
not have been the best response to rising crime.(p. 10) And ey goes on
to note that crime rates continued to fall while prison populations also
fell in later years: “Between 2010 and 2014, state prison populations
dropped by 4 percent while crime rates declined by 10 percent – with
crime falling in almost every state that scaled back
incarceration.”(p. 12) So even if locking up people in the 70s and 80s
did curtail some crime, clearly there isn’t a direct correlation between
imprisonment rates and crime rates.
There was a drop in the number of prisoners in the United $tates between
2010 and 2014 (4%), but this was driven by California which made up 62%
of the national decline. Outside of California, total prison populations
fell by 1.9% during this same period. But at the same time total
admissions rose by 1.1%. Pfaff cites this statistic in particular to
point out a failure of prison reform efforts using the metric of total
prison population. If the goal is to reduce the prison population
overall, looking at the drop in people locked up will miss the fact that
the total number of prisoners is actually rising!(p. 69) This is an
important point as we know that prison has lasting effects on all who
are locked up, as well as on their community, even if they are only
serving short sentences.
War on Drugs is not driving prison growth
Disagreeing with the common argument that locking up low-level drug
offenders is driving up the prison population, Pfaff points out that
“only about 16 percent of state prisoners are serving time on drug
charges – and very few of them, perhaps only around 5 or 6 percent of
that group, are both low level and nonviolent. At the same time, more
than half of all people in state prisons have been convicted of a
violent crime.”(p. 5) So ey argues that targeting non-violent drug
offenders is focusing on too small a population to make a significant
impact.
Pfaff offers extensive data analysis to demonstrate that the number of
people serving time for drug convictions just aren’t enough to be a
major driver of state prison growth. Ey does concede that “the single
biggest driver of the decline in prison populations since 2010 has been
the decrease in the number of people in prison for drug crimes. But
focusing on drugs will only work in the short run. That it is working
now is certainly something to celebrate. But even setting every drug
offender free would cut our prison population by only 16
percent.”(p. 35)
From this analysis Pfaff concludes that it is essential that prison
reformers not avoid talking about violent crime. “From 1990 to 2009…
about 60 percent of all additional inmates had been convicted of a
violent offense.”(p. 187) “[T]here are almost as many people in prison
today just for murder and manslaughter as the total state prison
population in 1974: about 188,000 for murder or manslaughter today,
versus a total of 196,000 prisoners overall in 1974.”(p. 185) And due to
length of sentence, “Violent offenders take up a majority of all prison
beds, even if they do not represent a majority of all
admissions.”(p. 188) So those serious about cutting back prisons will
need to cut back on locking people up for violent crimes.
Length of sentence
Pfaff concludes that longer sentences are not the cause of rising
imprisonment rates. This is the opposite of the common anti-prison
activist position: “despite the nearly automatic assumption by so many
that prison growth is due to ever-longer sentences, the main driver of
growth, at least recently, has been steadily rising admissions for
fairly short terms.”(p. 74) “[M]ost people serve short stints in prison,
on the order of one to three years, and there’s not a lot of evidence
that the amount of time spent in prison has changed that much – not just
over the 1990s, 2000s, and 2010s, but quite possibly over almost the
entire prison boom.”(p. 6)
Pfaff does concede that official sentences, per statutes, have gotten
longer, but ey claims time served has changed much less. At most average
time served in state prisons increased by 36% between 1990 and 2009,
which ey calls a small increase that can’t explain most of the prison
growth over that time. (p. 58) Ey argues that tough sentencing laws are
all about politics and legislator image, trying to look tough on crime.
But they count on prosecutors not actually imposing the maximum
punishments.
Private prisons vs public employees
We agree with Pfaff that private prisons don’t play a very large role in
the current Amerikan criminal injustice system. “Private spending and
private lobbying … are not the real financial and political engines
behind prison growth. Public revenue and public-sector union lobbying
are far more important.”(p. 7) And ey correctly identifies “the real
political powers behind prison growth are the public officials who
benefit from large prisons: the politicians in districts with prisons,
along with the prison guards who staff them and the public-sector unions
who represent the guards.”(p. 7)
Pfaff makes a compelling point: public prisons will act the same way
private prisons act when facing the same contractual incentives. Ey goes
on to argue that it might actually be better to expand private prisons
but give them incentives for better performance, such as rewarding lack
of recidivism.
It is public prison employees who are the strongest opponents of private
prisons. This was seen in Florida where an attempt to privatize 27
prisons was killed after the public employees’ union got a bunch of
congresspeople to vote against the bill.(p. 87)
This strength of public prisons lobbying is also behind the fact that
closing public prisons doesn’t necessarily result in much savings
because the unions will aggressively oppose any lost jobs. In
Pennsylvania, the state closed two prisons in 2013 and laid off only
three guards. In New York the prison population dropped by 25% since
1999 but they have not closed any prisons.(p. 88)
Pfaff concludes: “In other words, reformers should not really be
concerned with the privateness of the PIC. They should worry that as
prisons grow, the supporting bureaucracies – private and public alike –
will grow as well, and they will fight against anything that jeopardizes
their power and pay.”(p. 91)
Pfaff is correct that private prisons are not driving incarceration
rates. Actually, public employee wages are playing a much larger role.
However, there are valid reasons to oppose privatization for reformers,
or anyone who subscribes to a sense of humynism. In our bourgeois
democracy, the law does provide for greater accountability of public
institutions. Therefore, public prisons will generally allow less
unnecessary suffering than private ones. Of course, neither
privatization, nor the public sector can eliminate the oppression of the
capitalist state that is meted out by the police and prisons. Yet,
privatization of the state-sanctioned use of force only creates more
problems for those working for progressive change.
Recidivism
Pfaff disagrees with the argument that a big driver behind the prison
population is recidivism, specifically that lots of people are being
sent back to prison for technical violations or small issues. Ey does
find that in most states the number of parole conditions has gone up,
from an average of 11 in 1982 to an average of 18 in 2008.(p. 62) But
digging into recidivism more deeply, Pfaff cites a study that found that
only about a third of people admitted to prison end up returning. And ey
correctly notes that if the commonly cited Bureau of Justice Statistics
claim of a 50% recidivism rate is wrong, this just means that even more
people are ending up in prisons at some time in their lives. This is
perhaps an even scarier story than the high recidivism rate because it
means that even more lives are being ruined by prison.
States vs counties
Pfaff points out that the $50 billion that states spend on prisons is
only about 3% of state spending. And as has been seen in examples above,
the savings from decarceration are not that great if states can’t
actually close prisons or lay off guards. Also, releasing individual
prisoners doesn’t result in much savings because prisons work on an
economy of scale. While we can calculate the average cost of
incarceration per persyn, we can’t translate that directly into savings
when one persyn is released, because the entire infrastructure is still
in place.(p. 99)
New York City actually did cut its prison population recently, along
with a few other urban counties in New York. However, rural counties
sent more people to prison so the overall impact was growth, not
decreasing numbers of prisoners in New York.(p. 76) Similarly, higher
crime rate areas like Los Angeles and San Francisco in California send
relatively fewer people to prison compared to more rural counties which
tend to be more conservative.(p. 77)
We touched on this urban vs. rural discrepancy in imprisonment rates in
a recent article on
national
oppression in prison, suggesting that this could be the primary
driver behind the (temporary?) drop in the discrepancy between
incarceration rates of oppressed nations and whites. Since more whites
are in the rural counties, statistically that’s who is getting locked up
if those counties are locking people up at a higher rate. Pfaff’s data
backs up our theory.
Prosecutors driving imprisonment
Pfaff argues compellingly that the primary driver behind the boom in
prisoners in the past few decades is prosecutorial toughness:
prosecutors are charging more people with more serious crimes.
Prosecutors have a tremendous amount of latitude. They can determine the
charges brought against people, which in turn drives the level of
seriousness of the crime and potential sentences. They can also decide
when to take a plea and what to offer in the plea.
To prove the impact of prosecutors, Pfaff cites data between 1991 and
2014 when crime rates were falling. During this period the arrest rates
by police matched crime rates, which means that as violent and property
crimes fell so did arrests for those offenses. In states Pfaff examined,
arrests fell 10% between 1994 and 2008. But at the same time the number
of felony cases rose steeply. Fewer people were entering the criminal
injustice system but more were facing felony charges. Pfaff calculated a
40% increase in felony cases. Ey found this was the only thing that
changed; felony charges resulted in imprisonment at the same rate as
before. So Pfaff concludes: “In short, between 1994 and 2008, the number
of people admitted to prison rose by about 40 percent, from 360,000 to
505,000, and almost all of that increase was due to prosecutors bringing
more and more felony cases against a diminishing pool of
arrestees.”(p. 72) The probability that a prosecutor would file felony
charges against an arrestee basically doubled during this time period.
Pfaff attributes this prosecutorial aggression to a few things. First,
the number of prosecutors trying cases has increased significantly over
the past forty years, unrelated to crime rates. Prosecutor discretion is
not new, but they seem to be using it more and more aggressively in
recent years. And it is the prosecutors who have complete control over
which cases get filed and which get dismissed. Prosecutors also have a
huge advantage over public defenders, whose budget is significantly less
than prosecutors and who don’t benefit from free investigative services
from law enforcement.(p. 137)
Overall Pfaff finds very little data available on prosecutors and so
finds it impossible to come to firm conclusions about why they are so
aggressively increasing prosecution rates. Ey spends a lot of the book
talking about potential prosecutoral reforms but also concludes that
mandatory data collection around prosecution is essential to get a
better handle on what’s going on.
While this data on the role of prosecutors in driving imprisonment rates
in recent years is interesting, revolutionaries have to ask how
important this is to our understanding of the system. Whether it’s more
cops on the streets driving more arrests, or more aggressive prosecutors
driving more sentences, the net result is the same. If we’re looking to
reform the system, Pfaff’s data is critical to effectively targeting the
most important part of the system. But for revolutionaries this
information is most useful in exposing the injustice behind the curtain
of the system. We want to know how it works but ultimately we know we
need to dismantle the whole system to effect real and lasting change.
Solutions
Even within eir general belief that prisons are necessary to stop crime,
Pfaff makes some good points: “To argue that prison growth contributed
to 25 percent of the drop in crime does not mean that it was an
efficient use of resources: perhaps we could have achieved an equally
large decline in a way that was less fiscally and socially
costly.”(p. 116) And ey goes on to note that studies suggest
rehabilitation programs outside of prison do a much better job reducing
crime.
Some of Pfaff’s solutions are things we can get behind, like adequately
funding public defenders. And most of them, if effective, would result
in fewer prisoners and better programs to help prisoners both while
locked up and once on the streets. But still these solutions are about
relatively small reforms: giving prosecutors more guidance, expanding
political oversight, expanding parole and providing more scientific
structure to parole decisions, appointing prosecutors rather than
electing them, setting up better contracts with private prisons paying
based on how prisoners performed upon release.
All of these reforms make sense if you believe the Amerikan prison
system has a primary goal of keeping society safe and reforming
criminals. This is where we deviate from Pfaff because we can see that
prisons are just a tool of a fundamentally corrupt system. And so
reforms will only be implemented with sufficient belief from those in
charge that the fundamental system won’t be threatened. And certainly
the Amerikan imperialists aren’t looking to “improve” or reform the
system; they will only react to significant social pressure, and only as
much as they need to to take pressure off.
Well, once again I’m writing to you so that it becomes known that Texas
is at it again. The prison system is shifting its inmates around once
more. Recently I wrote letting you know that 300 plus inmates had gotten
shipped off to Pack 1 unit from Connally because they needed to fill it
up due to inmates battling the conditions of heat related deaths who got
shipped off that unit to try and stall or and disrupt the unified civil
act that was filed. So in saying these units from Texas; Connally,
Smith, Gibb Lewis, Eastham, Stevenson etc. sent inmates to fill in the
bunks at Pack 1 Unit in Navaosta, TX.
Now we’ve been shipped back to our original units due to this civil act
being won in the courts and those inmates having to be sent back to
their original unit as well! The crazy thing is that the prison system
tries its hardest to escape the responsibilities it has towards its
subjects. This is a known practice! The bus ride to and from was no easy
trip. Cramed like sardines and cuffed to each other and then having to
endure the shifting and bouncing on the bus ride for for plus hours is
not only annoying but dehumanizing as well!
Most of us who got shipped to Pack 1 have been on Connally unit over a
decade and never experienced such circumstances and so it was confusing
to go thru this situation. Now, the thing is that there is a rumor that
some of us will go back as well once TDC puts in the AC units that those
inmates won thru the courts. Sometime in April. But this only serves to
encourage other inmates on other units to file suits as well and get
this party going with the whole system statewide to put AC units in
every prison.
Here at California Correctional Institution (CCI) I’ve been housed on C
yard in building 1 over 9 months. In all that time, and I was told for
at least 2 additional years, this building has refused to hire any Black
prisoners as porters. Correctional Officers have interfered with
elections held to pick Black MAC/IAC (Men’s/Inmate Advisory Council)
representatives. Picking who they want over who the Black prisoners
living in the building vote for, usually of the uncle Tom more effective
variety.
I have brought this inequality issue up verbally and in the CDCR 22
form: request for interview. Verbally i’ve been told that i’m on the
short list for over 90 days while all other races have been hired for
that position in that time. I’ve been told that the fact that they’ve
hired every other race continuously doesn’t mean that they are
personally racist, to which I responded by pointing out the obvious
hiring practices having either racial bias or a selective preference.
I’ve shown and proved that in the rules and regulations of the Title 15,
Section 3041.1.(7) which states: “Ethnic balance, ethnic balance is
achieved by having the facilities white, Black, Hispanic, American
Indian, and other identified ethnicities in the inmate population
proportionately represented in the number of paid assignments at the
facility.” Even when written on the CDCR 22 form which never got a
response from Clearborn nor Trye but carbon copies were sent to the
Ombudsman Ms. Sara Smith who I met with on three separate times
addressing issues consistent with these aforementioned issues, yet there
is not change on the lines of inequality when it comes to Black
prisoners.
Seriously when we look at the practices of racism in prisons in the era
of civil rights we see the exact same mentalities at work, the “slow
change” and “just wait” mantras for black opportunities, equal treatment
and even now blacks are double that of whites in unemployment in this
country and sadly this is also true for black prisoners in building 1 on
C yard at CCI.
As a Hollywood movie based on a Marvel comic book, Black Panther
stands out for overtly political themes and some honest discussion of
national oppression. It features a Wakandan society of supremely
advanced and peaceful Africans. A society that includes strong,
empowered wimmin in roles of defense, science and serving the oppressed.
The Wakandan society is completely hidden from the world and led by a
king, T’Challa, the movie’s hero. Its isolation is based in a legit fear
of the imperialist world which has a long history of oppression and
exploitation in Africa. The Wakandan solution was to hide, and focus on
building a strong and peaceful society internally. It was wildly
successful, surpassing the rest of the world in all realms of science.
And what’s more, the movie suggests that Wakanda built, on the wealth of
its natural resources, a society with no apparent exploitation or
oppression. But this isolationism does have a growing opposition from
within, from some who want to help the oppressed in the world.
We can compare Wakanda’s isolationism to revolutionary movements that
have taken power in one country, only to find themselves surrounded by
enemies. In places like north Korea, Cuba, and Albania, isolation was a
strategic move against outside interference, but ultimately was also a
great difficulty for these nations. Wakanda does not face similar
challenges due to its tremendous wealth of resources, but also because
no one knows about its advanced society, so there’s no severe drain of
resources being spent on national self-defense. The world thinks Wakanda
is just a Third World country full of farmers.
What we found most interesting about the movie was not the protagonists,
but the antagonist, Eric Killmonger, who came up in Oakland in the
1990s. Killmonger’s father (T’Challa’s uncle) was serving as a Wakandan
spy in Oakland when ey fell in love with the oppressed New Afrikan
people ey was living among, and decided ey needed to take Wakandan
resources to help liberate these people. For betraying Wakanda,
Killmonger’s father was killed by the king (eir own brother), which left
Killmonger abandoned in Oakland. The king kept this betrayal, death, and
Eric a secret all the way to the grave, so Killmonger’s appearance came
as a sudden surprise to those living an idyllic life in the capitol.
Eric Killmonger is a product of eir abandonment by Wakanda and eir
upbringing on the streets of Oakland. Killmonger saw the desperate
struggles of the New Afrikan nation in the United $tates and could not
forgive Wakanda for not helping these people. Killmonger wasn’t only
seeking persynal revenge for eir father’s death, ey was fighting to
continue eir father’s dream of helping the oppressed liberate
themselves. Killmonger’s education (at MIT) and training (in the U.$.
military) was purposeful, focused on getting em into a position to
control the Wakandan resources so that ey could use them to help the
oppressed. Killmonger cultivated the passion and perseverance to bring
em all the way to the hidden society of Wakanda and into a duel for the
throne.
Killmonger doesn’t hesitate to kill, even those ey seems to care about,
to achieve eir goal. But this is war, and the lives of millions around
the world are at stake. We respect Killmonger’s drive and focus. Nicely
asking the Wakandan king to hand over some weapons and technology to
help the oppressed wasn’t going to work. Even similar requests from
influential people within Wakandan society were denied. So Killmonger
reasonably believed that eir only option was to take what ey wanted by
force.
There were many different reactions to this contradiction between
peaceful isolationism vs. violent uprising, playing out in the battle
for the throne. A faction of Wakandans (the civil defense force)
enthusiastically joined Killmonger once ey explained eir plan to arm New
Afrikans in the United $tates and Wakandan spies all over the world.
Killmonger’s proposal also included ensuring the sun never set on the
Wakandan empire. Whether the civil defense force joined for altruistic
or power-hungry reasons is up to the viewer to decide.
The royal defense force begrudgingly remained loyal to the throne when
Killmonger took power, from an adherence to conservative traditionalism
more than anything else. The royal defense quickly switched sides when a
technical justification arose – the duel for the throne was not
complete, because T’Challa was still alive. This faction of the military
is made out to be heroes, but they were defending a king who upheld
isolationism against a king who wanted to help free the world’s
oppressed.
Yet another angle is represented by T’Challa’s love interest, Nakia, a
spy who worked among refugees and victims of humyn trafficking. Ey
stubbornly refused a chance to become queen, so ey could continue eir
important work helping people outside of Wakanda. While ideologically
Nakia had much in common with Killmonger, at least in opposing Wakanda’s
isolationism and wanting to liberate oppressed people globally, ey
remained loyal to T’Challa. Nakia, like many other Wakandans, was
primarily against Killmonger’s strategy of sending weapons and firepower
out all over the world, and persynal feelings for T’Challa were an
influencing factor.
There were many strategic problems with Killmonger’s solution to
imperialist oppression, including the lack of leadership or liberation
movements to take advantage of the military and technology resources ey
was offering. It’s hard to see how just delivering weapons to the
oppressed would lead to liberation. In fact those weapons could easily
have ended up in the hands of the imperialists, which – besides
tradition and “it’s not our way” – was a primary justification given by
T’Challa and others for keeping Wakanda hidden from the world.
In the end, the conservative king wins, but ey learns that ey does have
a duty to the world’s people. A big part of T’Challa’s change in
perspective comes when the pedestal ey has built for tradition and
blindly following eir father’s path is torn down by the discovery of the
family secret. The appearance of Killmonger is a huge turning point for
T’Challa. T’Challa comes to see Killmonger as a monster who was created
by eir own father’s hands. T’Challa sees how an adherence to tradition
and isolation actually alienates people, such as young Eric, who
T’Challa feels should otherwise be included in the Wakandan umbrella of
aid and help.
So T’Challa comes to finally agree with Nakia and Killmonger that
Wakanda has a moral obligation to share its expertise. Unfortunately, in
spite of all Wakanda’s international spies, King T’Challa still fails to
correctly assess the balance of forces, and the friends and enemies of
the oppressed. The last scene of the movie shows T’Challa making a
speech at the United Nations, announcing that Wakanda will begin sharing
its technology and knowledge with the world. Ey also buys a few
buildings in Oakland, California to open Wakanda’s first youth outreach
and education center.
If T’Challa really wanted to help the world’s oppressed, ey could use
Wakanda’s technology of being able to stay hidden in plain sight, and
its reputation as a nonthreatening farming nation, to build the strength
of an underground army, to soon fight the oppressors for dual power, and
then freedom, including an end of capitalism. Rather than going to the
UN and announcing “Hey! We’re organizing and doing cool shit that will
threaten your power! Watch us closely!” ey could do this discretely and
very successfully. It seems T’Challa moved from conservative to liberal,
and didn’t quite make the step to true revolutionary.
I just finished reading “Texas Pack”, updated January 2016. I found very
helpful information and it’s good to know exactly what A.P. 06.08 says.
I was charged a copayment last 10/9/17 but didn’t know about it until I
received my trust fund statement November 9, 2017. Excuse that was the
date that money was taken from my account and the statement I didn’t
receive until December 2, 2017. I wrote the senior practice manager,
Kevin Moore, explaining what happened. He answered saying he needed to
know the date I was charged not the date it was taken from my account. I
don’t have access to that information, so I filed an I-127. His reply
was that according to A.D. 06.08, I had 90 days to appeal this issue and
had run out of time. My grievance was dated December 30, 2017, and my
letter was dated December 30, 2017. That was well within the 90-day
limit. I filed a Step 2 and will be very surprised if it makes it to
Huntsville. He has a habit of holding on to medical grievances. I filed
5 grievances from October 2017 to December 1, 2017 and never received an
answer. I filed one after T.D.C.J. sent him to Beto 1 because of all the
grievances I was filing at Powledge. The grievances I have filed have
vanished until I wrote a Mr. Phillips in Huntsville about it. It quit
happening but I think he will stop my Step 2.
Even the grievance coordinator is in on this. Before I knew what A.D.
06.08 said, I had claimed Mr. Moore has no authority to take money from
my trust fund account because I came to prison January 16, 1975. That is
before there was a copayment of any kind. I believe it violates Art 1
Sec 10 of the United States Constitution. As you know, Art 1 Sect 10
prohibits any state for passing or enforcing any legislation that will
burden a man’s sentence once it is legalized.
The problem is I believe, this practice manager used to be a warden. I’m
sure we can all agree someone who has been a warden doesn’t decide
suddenly they want to be a practice manager unless T.D.C.J told him he
could take that job or take a hike. He has a past, that’s for sure.
The free, I see, living and existing, without me They lock man
away in a cage, while the birds fly free & away In this kennel
for days, awaiting my day to escape the chains a long time coming,
awaiting for change deserted in a dry desert, awaiting the rain
to wash me away, back on my way, where the road is paved This
system can’t feel my pain This system can’t understand my brain
My soul, my heart, nor my spirit, or mind for that matter
Yesterday, I was a sleeping victim victimized by class
segregation Yesterday, I was comatose, to those who inflicted
economic degradation These Imperialist weapon of mass Destruction
is capitalism smoked screened by spiritual materialism The
irony is that of a materialist in prison Yesterday, I was
unconscious, to the drugs and guns that they sponsored
Yesterday, I was out cold, to the bold manipulation, out-of-control
of my own Yesterday, I dreamed the Amerikkkan dream thinking
living free, was greed Today I have awoken, Eyes wide open
Betita, Corky, Che, Zapata, and Poncho have spoken The spell is
broken
In recent months we’ve seen a huge number of people come forward with
accusations of sexual harassment or assault against men in the
entertainment industry, in politics, and well-known business leaders.
And in many cases the exposures have encouraged more people to come
forward, and the ending of careers. This has been integrated with a
#MeToo movement of wimmin stepping forward to say that these highly
publicized cases are not just isolated incidents. The point of #MeToo is
to show all wimmin experience unwanted sexual attention at some point in
their lives, often repeatedly. This movement has progressive aspects,
and here we will try to take readers to the logical conclusion of all
this exposure of sexual assault.
The Aziz Ansari sexual assault allegations perhaps most clearly
illustrate where the #MeToo movement must go if it is to really address
the root of these problems. Ansari is a famous actor, comedian and
filmmaker. In January, a womyn came forward anonymously with a detailed
account of her sexual encounter with Ansari. The womyn “Grace” described
a very awkward and unpleasant evening in which Ansari repeatedly made
sexual advances while “Grace” attempted to indicate her discomfort with
what she called “clear nonverbal cues.” When she finally said “no” to
one of his sexual propositions, Ansari backed off and suggested they
dress and just hang out.
Ansari claims he thought the encounter was entirely consensual. Grace
claims Ansari ignored all her attempts to put a stop to the sex. This
case has led to a useful debate over where to draw the line in terms of
what we call sexual assault. This case has led some (Grace supporters
and Grace opponents) to point out that calling her experience sexual
assault means we’ve all been sexually assaulted. Or maybe not everyone,
but most wimmin at the very least. Because most wimmin can point to a
situation where they were uncomfortable or unhappy but pressured by a
man to proceed with sex.
Ansari was oblivious to Grace’s lack of enjoyment, and her inability to
clearly verbally express this points to a power inequality. In a truly
equal relationship between two people, each would feel totally
comfortable walking away at any point. And each would be carefully
listening to what the other said (verbally and non-verbally). Whatever
it is that stopped Grace from walking away, whether it’s Ansari’s fame
or wealth, or just her training as a womyn to do what a man asks, it’s
undeniable that she was not able to just walk away.
This is the crux of the problem with attempting to reform away sexual
assault while we live in a patriarchal society. Rape is non-consensual
sex. And, as the Ansari case demonstrates, there are many situations in
which wimmin aren’t giving consent even though men think the encounter
is totally consensual. We call this non-consensual sex what it is: rape.
When there is a power difference in a relationship, the persyn with less
power is limited in their ability to consent. You can’t freely consent
when someone is holding a gun to your head. And similarly you can’t
freely consent when you fear economic consequences. Those are obvious
inequalities. Someone who says “yes, please” in those situations simply
can’t be freely consenting. The Ansari case gets at more subtle
inequalities, but ones that have a very real impact on people’s ability
to consent. In a society where inequality is inherent in every
interaction, we can’t expect people to have sexual relationships that
are equal and consensual. The problem isn’t that Ansari raped Grace. The
problem is that all sex under the patriarchy is non-consensual. Grace
just wrote about one of the more subtle cases of non-consensual sex.
All this sexual assault in Amerikan society isn’t the fault of the men
who are being called out. It’s the fault of the patriarchal society.
Grace proponents point out that it shouldn’t be wimmin’s responsibility
to help men learn how to read their discomfort. Grace opponents complain
that wimmin need to empower themselves and speak up and demand that
their consent (or lack of consent) be respected. This is a good debate,
and we actually agree with both sides. But it’s the wrong debate to be
having, because neither side can achieve their goal under patriarchy. A
lifetime of training to respect power (the power of men, the power of
money, the power of fame, the power of a teacher, the power of looks,
the power of skill) can’t be overcome with an assertiveness training
class. And educating people to ask for consent at every step of the way
won’t help when someone feels they have to say “yes” to their
teacher/priest/benefactor/mentor/idol.
Some might hope that other changes in Amerikan society will move us
towards abolishing the patriarchy. People fighting gender oppression
argue that having a womyn president who speaks out against sexual
harassment, and getting in judges who will prosecute people
aggressively, and the broad education and exposure of the #MeToo
campaign will eventually break down the gender power differential in
this society. But even this level of reform won’t change a fundamental
system that is based on power differentials. We don’t believe the
patriarchy can be abolished under a system that is set up to help the
rich profit off the exploitation of the Third World peoples.
The #MeToo movement is trying to show people how pervasive sexual
assault is. That’s important. We need to take that further and show the
link between power differentials in relationships and sexual assault.
And we must be clear that these power differences will always exist
under a capitalist patriarchy. We can’t reform our way to pure and equal
sex. Just as many wimmin are now dramatically calling out #MeToo, we
dramatically call out #AllSexIsRape. Sexual assault is everywhere;
revolutionary change is needed.
I’m now writing from segregation. They have really gone off the rails
now. The L/L staff now disallow nonverbal communication as well as
verbal communications. I found this out by allowing the prisoner seated
next to me in the L/L to read my memorandum. He didn’t make it to page 2
before a staff member (same one who stole my legal documents out of my
cell) came up and SNATCHED my memo out of his hands.
Knowing that this act was, once again, generated by the A.T.C.
supervisor/law librarian I got up and asked her “under what rule do you
have my legal document taken?” I was expelled from the L/L when, in
response to her telling me to sit down, I asked the question a second
time. According to the A.T.C. 040 and VIII we are allowed to pass legal
material during a session in the L/L.
I packed my stuff up and signed out. Then I asked for my legal
document—which, by the way, is exhibit “B” in my active TORT action
where these two state employees are named defendants. She stared at the
ceiling (15 feet from me) and ignored me. I stated “I want my damn
document” and palmed the counter twice to get her attention. What I did
was wake up the Medusa within her. I found out 3 hours later that in
doing what I did I:
threatened to inflict harm on an officer (?)
disobeyed a direct order (?)
used vulgar language or gesture (??) (Damn)
Then the “troll” staff member fabricated that I said to her, “Woo,
if we were in the free world” which too is sensationalized into
“threatening to inflict harm on an officer”…HA! (Those words never
passed my lips).
At the same time I was in neither within 15 feet of the “threatened”
officer.
My ultimate disgrace is that no inmate interviewed gave a useful
accounting or admitted that I did not say what the “troll” staff member
claims I said. My brothers in incarceration left me high and dry giving
zero support. Shame shame on every one of them. Institutionalized scared
pussies. They just don’t realize that these folks only do to us that
which we allow. We make these units TDCJ run.
What these defendants have done have elevated my state TORT action to a
state 1983 civil rights violation suit. Due to their conspiratorial
relative acts. I will prevail!!
In getting put into lock up these F…olks have…oops…misplaced 12 of my
law books and my dictionary.