Federal Prisons

Please be advised that Florida Department of Corrections has banned all MIM publications. At this time I’m not able to file an informal or formal grievance or appeal as to do so will result in immediate property and mail restriction with a stretch of disciplinary confinement to back it up. Enclosed are the latest rejection slips.

MIM(Prisons) responds: We are seeing many rejections from Florida prisons, although ULK is still getting in to a few folks. We need jailhouse lawyers who are being censored in Florida who can help take up this fight through the grievances and into the courts. Your work will impact many in this state with so many people behind bars. Get in touch with us if you can take up this censorship battle. And for anyone on the streets reading this, we really need lawyers who can support these lawsuits from the outside. Check out our extensive documentation of censorship in Florida (and elsewhere) from our Amerikan Censorship Documentation Project

En semanas recientes hemos visto los vídeos ofensivos de colonizadores atacando a gente Indígena que están tratando de proteger sus tierras de la invasión y destrucción en su tierra natal de la Nación Lakotah. La resistencia ha unido a muchas personas de “First Nation” (Primera Nación) así como también muchos partidarios alrededor del campo Piedra Sagrada en la punta norte de la reserva Standing Rock. Este es el punto donde la Tubería de Acceso Dakota (DAPL por sus siglas en inglés), actualmente en construcción, se acerca a las actuales fronteras de la reserva. Esta semana, 200 personas se mudaron, a la isla que Energy Transfer Partners (Compañeros de Transferencia de Energía) reclama, colocando su campamento de invierno en el camino a la tubería.

En respuesta, Energy Transfer Partners le dijeron a la gente que estaban entrando sin derecho, que “el comportamiento ilegal no será tolerado.” (1) No hay mejor ejemplo de cómo la “ley” puede ser una institución utilizada por el opresor para legitimar su poder. Cuando los colonos vinieron por primera vez a matar indígenas y a robar sus tierras, ellos declararon esta tierra “ilegal.”

Los Lakotah Sioux están usando un dominio eminente para reclamar la tierra en cuestión como se establece legalmente en su tratado de 1851 con el gobierno de los Estados Unidos. El presidente de Cheyenne River Sioux Harold Frazier se reunió con el Presidente Obama, y con el Abogado de la Oficina de Gobierno para discutir su campaña y la represión policial desatada sobre protestantes pacíficos. Frazier relató una conversación que tuvieron:

De nuevo, la farsa de lo que es la ley de los colonos Amerikanos se presenta ante nosotros. La Tribu de Standing Rock Sioux organizó el Primer consejo de Tratado Internacional del Hemisferio Occidental del 8-6 de Junio de 1974. Esta reunión fue honrada en 2007 en otra reunión donde la República de Lakotah declaró soberanía, reclamando mucha de la tierra a través de la cual la construcción de la DAPL está ocurriendo hoy.(2)

Las personas indígenas en Norteamérica siempre han estado en las líneas del frente del movimiento anti imperialista. Ellos fueron las primeras víctimas del colonialismo y del capitalismo/imperialismo emergente en esta tierra. Su lucha constante para reclamar su tierra es central para la re-civilización de la brutal nación colonizadora de Amerikkka.

I’m writing you from a federal jail facility here in Murphy, NC. We have been on lockdown for close to 3 months now. We are on lockdown for what another individual had done, what it is I have no idea. Since my arrival I have come into contact with ULK and value the information and its message. If possible can you begin my subscription?

Prisoners should send a copy of the signed petition to each of the addresses listed on the petition, and below. Supporters should send letters on behalf of prisoners.

Director Wendy Kelley<br>
Arkansas Department of Corrections<br>
PO Box 8707<br>
Pine Bluff, AR 71611-8707<br><br>

United States Department of Justice - Civil Rights Division<br>
Special Litigation Section<br>
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, PHB<br>
Washington, D.C. 20530<br><br>

Office of Inspector General<br>
HOTLINE<br>
P.O. Box 9778<br>
Arlington, Virginia 22219<br><br>

And send MIM(Prisons) copies of any responses you receive!

MIM(Prisons), USW<br>
PO Box 40799<br>
San Francisco, CA 94140<br>

Prisoners should send a copy of the signed petition to each of the addresses listed on the petition, and below. Supporters should send letters on behalf of prisoners.

Louisiana Department of Corrections
PO Box 94304
Baton Rouge, LA 70804-9304

United States Department of Justice - Civil Rights Division
Special Litigation Section
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, PHB
Washington, D.C. 20530

Office of Inspector General
HOTLINE
P.O. Box 9778
Arlington, Virginia 22219

And send MIM(Prisons) copies of any responses you receive!
MIM(Prisons), USW
PO Box 40799
San Francisco, CA 94140


Pdf updated October 2017

“America no puede existir sin separarnos a nosotros mismos de nuestras identidades.”

La lucha comenzó en 2011, con una lucrativa propuesta de una compañía Canadiense para acceder a tierras tribales y transportar petróleo crudo al Golfo de Texas. Dicen que la construcción ayudará a crear trabajos permanentes, que el dinero dado a los consejos tribales ayudará a satisfacer las necesidades de las personas. En realidad, esta tubería creará un desastre ambiental. América nunca puede financiar su propia estructura, ¿cómo se puede esperar el mantenimiento de una tubería en las tierras tribales soberanas?

El problema no es sólo la tubería y toda la inmundicia que viene con ella. El problema es la total violación de nuestros tratados, y la falta de tratamiento de la auto-determinación y la Declaración de las Naciones Unidos sobre los Derechos de los Pueblos Indígenas. Esta tubería pisotea a los derechos humanos y prueba la ciudadanía de segunda clase que se les da a todas las naciones tribales, y personas.

Tomen en consideración como todos los portavoces del gobierno se enfurecen con cualquier violación de cualquier tratado otorgado a gobiernos extranjeros por el gobierno de Estados Unidos, ¿porqué son tan rápidos al descartar los derechos que se otorgaron a las naciones tribales?

Fuimos a la guerra por esos tratados. Si, es 2016 y todos los “indios” deberían funcionar como Amerikanos regulares, al menos esa es la retórico. Pero al iniciar un tratado se nos provee reconocimiento, y estipula acuerdos bilaterales que todas las partes deben honrar. Al menos, de hecho, que nuestros tratados sean sólo “pedazos de papel”, y si ese es el caso, Rusia debería pasar por alto las resoluciones de la ONU con los Estados Unidos y bombear Israel. No es igual? El Artículo 6 de la constitución de los Estados Unidos y la cláusula piloto de 1888 dice lo contrario. Ambos reconocen el poder permanente de todos los tratados Indígenas y todas las Naciones Indígenas. Sólo porque los tiempos han cambiado no significa que las palabras también.

El gobierno de los Estados Unidos ha estado empujando a todas las naciones tribales al genocidio por los últimos 298 años. La pobreza, agua mala, aire contaminado, desperdicio nuclear, minas abiertas de uranio, alcoholismo, ninguna infraestructura de trabajo para empezar.

El suicidio entre hombres jóvenes se ha convertido en una epidemia. Solamente somos endulzados con palabras cuando los trabajadores del gobierno quieren sentirse bien, luego nos quitan a nuestros hijos, los llevan al lado del estado y los tiran a la “gente blanca” para que los civilicen — violando así otra ley federal, la Ley para el Bienestar del Niño Indígena.

Esta tierra significa más para nosotros que sólo una terreno para todo el pueblo tribal, igual que en 1848 cuando los Estados Unidos se unieron a todo Aztlán desde México y construyeron la frontera paramilitar más grande en el mundo, se esta haciendo mucho para separar a las naciones tribales de nuestras tierras. En 1973 peleamos y morimos por nuestra tierra. Si es necesario, marquen mis palabras, nos levantaremos y pelearemos de nuevo. Esta tierra es nuestra identidad. Tiene la sangre de nuestros ancestros, y la tubería matará a nuestra gente.

In recent weeks we have seen the offensive videos of settlers attacking indigenous people who are trying to protect their land from invasion and destruction in the homeland of the Lakotah Nation. The resistance has brought together many First Nation people as well as many supporters around the Sacred Stone Camp in the northern tip of the Standing Rock reservation. This is the point where the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL), currently under construction, comes closest to current reservation borders. This week 200 people moved onto the land claimed by Energy Transfer Partners, setting up their winter camp in the path of the planned pipeline.

In response, Energy Transfer Partners said the people were trespassing, saying “lawless behavior will not be tolerated.”(1) There is no better example of how the “law” can be an institution utilized by the oppressor to legitimize their power. When the settlers first came to kill Indigenous people and steal their land, they declared this land to be “lawless.”

The Lakotah Sioux are using eminent domain to claim the land in question as rightfully theirs based on their 1851 treaty with the United $tates government. Cheyenne River Sioux Chair Harold Frazier met with President Obama, as well as the U.$. Attorney’s Office to discuss their campaign and the police repression being unleashed on peaceful protestors. Frazier retold one conversation ey had:

Frazier: “How can a non-Indian physically assault an Indian and get away with it?”
U.S. Attorney’s office: “Well, that’s on state land.”
Frazier: “So does that mean if a non-Indian comes to an Indian on Indian land that the Indian could do it back?”
U.S. Attorney’s office: “Oh no, you’d go to jail.”(1)

Again, the farce that is Amerikan settler law is laid bare before us.

The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe hosted the First International Treaty Council of the Western Hemisphere from 8-16 June 1974. This meeting was honored in 2007 at another meeting where the Republic of Lakotah declared sovereignty, claiming much of the land through which DAPL construction is occurring today.(2)

Indigenous people in North America have always been at the front lines of the anti-imperialist movement. They were the first victims of colonialism and emerging capitalist/imperialism on this land. Their continued struggle to reclaim this land is central to a re-civilization of the brutal settler nation of Amerikkka.

This is in response to ULK 52, page 18, “Building Peace and Unity in CO.” This is an untrue statement. There might be individuals on peace. But that is all, the majority is still the same. Colorado lacks a gang structure to call a treaty like that. Let alone a revolutionary mindset. Colorado/the man, learned from other states how to repress gang structure. And how to ultimately control the gangs and the entire system. Through divide and conquer strategies within the gangs, the same gangs, not just different gangs against different gangs.

This is accomplished by privileges and by conforming to their standards. A lack of discipline for a group’s goals. And the way they breed juveniles’ minds in their juvenile facilities to show who the authority is, and snitch programs to confront one another. Brainwashing. With the exception of few, but not enough to enact any kind of movement for gang or revolution. I heard a quote “the most common way a people loses their power is by thinking they have none at all.” That is the majority mindset out here in every aspect.

I became conscious recently. I have been educating myself as much as I can to politics, history and different cultures. Empires are the power through history in every culture. As a conscious man it was not my choice to be born oppressed but it is my choice to struggle against it. Knowledge is power, to change yourself and your surroundings. That is what needs to be attained and given to the people. Especially the children. So that generation changes the situation. So it becomes not a choice but the way of life, while always knowing that there will always be forces to try to destroy that life, but no matter what to continue on. I educate who I can and always will now. I find it hard to change a man’s way of thought but I try. Knowing that thought was created for his destruction.

I am stuck in some of my ways also. Change takes time. Being stuck in prison is also a hindrance. Something that destroys life and choice. Always a created struggle. That is what I figured out in these studies. You need a pure mind to enact a change. And that is our children, they are pure. A sponge to gain all the knowledge needed to ultimately find the true meaning of life watch as peace of mind, happiness, love, family. To teach them what needs to be done so they can have that, along with their family and people.

I hope one day to become one of a million instead of one in a million. Ho Chi Minh said “when the prison doors are open the real dragons will fly out.” I am a dragon full of rage for the oppressor, love for my people, knowledge to be spread and flames to be unleashed on our enemies. The day my wings will open to fly out and accomplish all these things. I have love for all oppressed people.

MIM(Prisons) responds: This comrade starts off disagreeing with what someone else wrote about building unity in Colorado, but in the end argues that change is possible and that we need to educate and build for unity. We agree there is much work to be done, but we must build and educate in whatever situation we can. In the case of our comrades behind bars, this means doing the work that is often hard and slow to overcome the brainwashing of a lifetime of education and build unity against the criminal injustice system. For those who have become conscious, it is our duty to share this with others. It is not enough to just understand oppression ourselves. One good way to get started is by forming a study group where you’re at. We can supply some information on how to do this along with study materials. Write to us to get started.

For those of us who have received a political education and are locked away in Amerikkka’s prisons, the September 9 Day of Peace and Solidarity should be a call to action. As many people as have been involved in MIM and MIM(Prisons)-led study groups over the years, comrades should be more than clear on what their duties and responsibilities are to the prison struggle as well as to the International Communist Movement (ICM). The fact that September 9 events are still few and far between is therefore continuing indicative proof of a variety of contradictions still plaguing the prison movement. This essay attempts to address and give special attention to the development of the mass line.

Some people who have shown interest in taking up revolutionary politics incorrectly believe that they must spend years on end learning political theory before they are ready to take up revolutionary struggle, especially when it comes to applying Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. However, this type of thinking is incorrect, not only because it has the potential to slow down revolution, but because it can be used to purposely derail the revolutionary movement. Just think – where would any revolutionary movement be if everyone always sought to first become an expert in any particular field before they did anything? This is what Maoists criticized as the “experts in command” approach to education, production and revolution in communist China during the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution (GPCR) (1966-1976), the furthest advance towards communism in humyn hystory!

The experts in command political line was initially related to the intellectual belief during the Great Leap Forward (1958-1961), that only experts with years of training (usually within the confines of a classroom or a controlled environment) were worthy enough to lead or teach. This same line was later used by traitors and the bourgeoisie in the Chinese Communist Party itself as a way to disempower the revolutionary masses and consolidate their grip on power.

In opposition to experts in command, Mao Zedong and others began popularizing Lenin’s slogan of “fewer, but better” by pointing out that it wasn’t necessary for comrades to have years of experience in political struggle before they were able to take up leadership roles. Instead Mao stressed comrades’ dedication to serving the people as more important than this “expertise.” Furthermore, Mao encouraged cadre to not separate themselves from the revolutionary masses, but to work amongst them and help them develop the mass line. To develop and carry out the mass line is simply to help the masses develop and carry the revolutionary programs that will best help them accomplish the task of developing revolution and achieving self-determination. Without the mass line revolution is impossible; the masses will sink ever deeper into despair, while the leaders lead the revolutionary movement astray and the oppressors will rein. Mao Zedong’s instructions for cadre to develop the mass line are thus:

“In all the practical work of our Party, all correct leadership is necessarily ‘from the masses, to the masses.’ This means: take the ideas of the masses (scattered and unsystematic ideas) and concentrate them (through study turn them into concentrated and systematic ideas), then go to the masses and propagate and explain these ideas until the masses embrace them as their own, hold fast to them and translate them into action, and test the correctness of these ideas in such action. Then once again concentrate ideas from the masses and once again go to the masses so that the ideas are persevered in and carried through. And so on, over and over again in an endless spiral, with the ideas becoming more correct, more vital and richer each time. Such is the Marxist theory of knowledge.” - Some Questions Concerning Methods of Leadership

Mao also said it would be enough for comrades to first put an emphasis on being “red” with an aim towards becoming experts through continued participation in revolutionary struggle.

There is also the problem of intellectuals in the prison movement. But does this mean that all intellectuals in the prison movement are a problem? No, of course not. There are revolutionary intellectuals and there are bourgeoisie intellectuals. Revolutionary intellectuals hate oppression, they value knowledge as power and the collective accomplishments of many people, and they are dedicated to using their knowledge to serve the people. Bourgeois intellectuals on the other hand don’t much care if people are oppressed, they are apathetic, they value knowledge for the sake of knowledge and they view the accumulation of knowledge as the accomplishment of great individuals. Some of these people may sometimes cheerlead for anti-imperialism and revolutionary struggles, but thru their inaction they actually hold up imperialism. Such people often excel in MIM(Prisons)-led study groups. These types of people take up revolutionary politics for the sole purpose of study and discussion without application, which is to say that they get off on talking about revolution but very rarely do they go further. These types of people give lip service to communist ideology and the topic of national liberation. When pressed on putting their knowledge to use they’ll suddenly come up with excuses. “Now is not a good time for me,” “The masses aren’t ready,” “The movement isn’t ready,” etc, etc. In fact it is they who are not ready!

Real revolutionary intellectuals don’t study revolutionary theory for the sake of knowledge, but to make revolution. Theory without practice ain’t shit! Mao addressed this in his essay “On Practice”:

“What Marxist philosophy regards as the most important problem does not lie in understanding the laws of the objective world and thus being able to explain it, but in applying the knowledge of these laws actively to change the world.”

Maoism teaches us that there is no great difference between politically conscious leaders and mere followers, between leaders and led. The only difference is practice, for practice alone is the criterion of truth for knowledge, as it is through practice that the masses can come to power and exert influence over their destiny.

I have had a revolutionary mindstate since I was 16 (I am 30 now), when I realized our current government structure was corrupt and I started searching for a new philosophy. I came into Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. Ever since then I have been a sort of pariah in society for my views. I caught my first bid at 18 and have been in and out of the prison system repeatedly. Mind you these prison bids were my own fault but the length of the sentences were always to the extreme. I was never given a second chance. Now I am in a Level 4 work release and finally about to go home in a few weeks and felt it necessary to share my views.

For starters oppressor-nation lumpen organizations should not ever be trusted. Joining with their factions they will try to incorporate their bigoted views into our cause and give true freedom a sour taste in our mouths. That is why we should avoid this situation. A united front is exactly how it sounds, united at all fronts no matter your race, sex, creed, or class. Hatred should not be tolerated within our ranks.

The same goes for pariahs such as snitches, child molesters, and rapists. These are things we should not tolerate. In order for the revolution to succeed we cannot have people looking at our organizations as a threat to house and home. Unity is built on trust. Would you trust a convicted and known child molester to be around your children, or a convicted rapist to be around our wimmin? I know I wouldn’t. Amerikkka would love for us to have dissension within our ranks and we cannot afford to have this.

As for snitches, they work for the government! This cannot be allowed to infiltrate our ranks. If you would tell on a case so you don’t go to jail, how can we trust you with political treason? Our revolutionary leaders are already being killed and incarcerated, we cannot let in anyone who will jeopardize more of our leaders. Take for instance, one of us was in contact with Edward Snowden (a true patriot, also this is all hypothetical) if a snitch caught wind and set him up to be arrested a leader will be lost.

Comrades I encourage you to think about the implications of letting these kinds of people into our rank and file. Long live the revolution.

MIM(Prisons) responds: This writer raises an important point about who we can organize with. A comrade in Virginia wrote in with similar concerns:

“Individuals lose sight that to these bigotry-minded organizations we are stupid. They feel as tho we need them to survive. I don’t agree with that at all, ULK and all the brothers and sisters make it work and it means so much to me that we have this movement. If these oppressors know our lessons and remedies for the oppression we hope to stop it will be so much harder for us to stand against this imperialist movement they run daily.

”Just because they say they want to help does not mean that’s their goal. See when they start sentencing whites to harsh treatment as they do our people daily and blanket the way we are oppressed then I can say their actions show they want to help us. It’s not the case of wanting to help us it’s about them gaining intel on our movement, so for that I disagree with any movement of this struggle joining forces with oppressive white groups.”

Both these writers express concerns that undermine our position against coalition-based organizing in favor of building united fronts. Below we explain the difference between united front and coalition organizing, and we encourage our readers to write in with your thoughts if you think this distinction would resolve the concerns presented above. Below we make generalizations about the two modes of collaboration, but of course there may be some coalitions that operate more similar to a united front and vice versa.

In united front organizing, various organizations come together to work on a specific goal or project. All the organizations maintain their independence, which is a very important distinction from coalition building. So in a united front, white supremacist groups could maintain their bigoted views and their ultimate goal to undermine our self-determination. At the same time, liberatory organizations maintain our politics of anti-imperialism, anti-amerikkkanism, equality for all, etc.

On the other hand, in the coalition model, the groups are supposed to agree on and uphold the ideology of the coalition, which usually forces the more progressive grous to water down their line on the issue. Talking points are chosen and orgs in the coalition are supposed to stick to the talking points.

For example, if we enter into a united front with a prison reformist group which has a goal of reforming the prison system within capitalism, we will not tell them that they must agree with the need to overthrow capitalism in order to resolve the problems they are trying to fix. They also can’t force us to advertise that a series of reforms, while keeping capitalism and U.$.A. intact, is what we need to end oppression within prisons. Each organization is able to push the agenda of the united front (in this case, that Amerikan prisons are terrible) while putting our own analysis on the issue. In a coalition on the same topic, there is usually a greater unity of political line, which often means the line of the most progressive orgs are put on the back back back burner. All the groups don’t agree we need revolution, so revolution is not allowed in the campaign.

To the writer in Virginia’s concerns, about the security of our movement if we allow oppressor-nation lumpen organizations to gain intel on our inner-functions, we believe that first an accurate assessment must be made to figure out if these groups actually do have a genuine interest in the goals of the collaboration. If that assessment is accurate, then working together in a united front, focused specifically on a particular goal or task, should help protect us from these attacks because the information that needs to be shared is much more limited. The level of unity required is much more limited. The conversation is focused on “what will we do about this one particular problem?” and each group’s practical contribution to the campaign is left to itself to carry out.

So we disagree with the Delaware comrade’s definition of a united front as being united on all points. Instead we see it as united against a specific enemy or to achieve a specific goal. But let’s disregard semantics for a moment, and ask if these comrades believe we should still not work with opppressor-nation lumpen orgs, even if we use an independence-based united front model? Why or why not, and what examples can we look to to help us make this analysis? Would we be able to achieve our goals even if we have a policy to never have tactical unity with oppressor-nation groups?

More on security. Obviously snitches are dangerous to revolutionaries. However, people can be reformed. It is possible someone in prison got a reduced sentence for ratting out someone else. But once in prison they might come into contact with revolutionaries who educate them on the importance of unity amongst the oppressed and they are self-critical about their actions and resolve to never act against the oppressed again. We should not shun this persyn forever, but instead encourage their transformation and embrace genuine change.

We also call out the question of “convicted and known” rapists. Who is doing the convicting? Why do we trust the criminal injustice system to tell us who is a rapist? New Afrikan men accused of raping white wimmin are likely to be convicted, regardless of the facts. Accepting conviction as truth is something every prisoner knows to be dangerous. And so we ask why this conviction is an acceptable measure for rape? Of course anyone who advocates gender oppression or believes it is their right to sexually assault others will have fundamental disagreements with us. But we can’t just trust the state to tell us who are our friends and who are our enemies.

It is perhaps one of the biggest challenges for the oppressed to build a United Front against a principal enemy, overcoming the divisions put on us by the imperialists, and identifying allies even in the face of significant and fundamental disagreements over certain important issues.