Federal Prisons

…Estoy pensando acercar a la chica con la que estoy quedando a la política. La empezaré a tantear por primera vez sobre este tema mañana. Ella tiene 24 años y yo 31, así que creo que puedo moldearla. Además, es inocente y confiada. Intentaré enseñarla cuando la haya tanteado. Agradecería que me respondierais y me dijerais lo que pensáis de este caso particular.

MIM(Prisons) responde: Normalmente, desaconsejamos que se reclute a alguien con quien se está saliendo, sobre todo si dicha persona no ha mostrado estar interesada por sí sola en el antiimperialismo. No obstante, coincidimos con tu aparente actitud prudente de “tantearla” primero. Es una táctica de seguridad prudente no poner todas las cartas sobre la mesa respecto a tu actividad política con alguien que no estás segur@ de si lo va a tolerar.

Otra cosa que has comentado es que es más joven, inocente y confiada, e insinúas que te aprovecharás de eso. Es así como creas resentimiento y, cuando una persona está resentida con otra asociada con el movimiento, se pone en peligro dicho movimiento. Esto es más probable cuando está involucrado el amor. Esa es la primera razón por la que no mezclar las relaciones con el reclutamiento: La gente confunde las motivaciones. Reclutar a amig@s es algo menos arriesgado, pero también tiene este problema. Por otro lado, es cierto que l@s jóvenes están más abiert@s a políticas revolucionarias, lo que puede llevarnos a emprender tácticas como repartir folletos en las escuelas. Nuestra actitud no debe ir dirigida a aprovecharnos de l@s jóvenes o de las mujeres en general, usando características derivadas de la opresión de género a la que se enfrentan. Más bien, debemos acceder al resentimiento justificado que pueden tener por esa opresión para que dejen de lado las características negativas que las ha animado y volverse revolucionarias.

En situaciones más avanzadas, esto puede producirse de otra manera en la que l@s camaradas comiencen a preguntar si alguien ha empezado a juntarse porque está saliendo con un@ camarada o porque cree por sí mism@ en la lucha. Por ello, tanto para ella individu@ como para el colectivo es mejor ser clar@ y científic@ sobre cuál es la posición de cada un@.

Reclutar siempre debe hacerse basándose en una explicación científica de la línea política. Naturalmente, la subjetividad entra en juego y no hay nada de malo en adornar las cosas de manera que sean más atractivas para las masas (ej. Forma/ lenguaje). Sin embargo, no está bien manipular a la gente basándose en su subjetividad para que hagan política por otras razones distintas a su apoyo a dichas políticas, ya que esto conlleva a confusión, tanto políticamente como interpersonalmente. Esta es una cuestión realmente estratégica cuando decimos no usar el sexo, el coqueteo o la amistad para reclutar gente. Nuestro objetivo es enseñar a la gente a pensar científicamente y crear organizaciones científicas fuertes.

Esto no quiere decir que la mayoría de la gente en los movimientos de masas sean pensadoræs científic@s convencid@s por motivaciones puramente objetivas. Así que existen cuestiones tácticas sobre qué lenguaje e imágenes utilizar para presentar nuestro mensaje a las masas de manera que puedan identificarse con él. Llevar uniformes, asociar buena música con nuestro movimiento o que personas famosas recomienden nuestro trabajo son todo tácticas que atraen al subjetivismo de la gente sin manipular al individu@ y, por tanto, sin poner en peligro el movimiento.

Como mínimo, la mitad de nuestr@s lectoræs están en prisión e, incluso en la universidad o en cualquier comunidad más pequeña, verás a menudo que gente con la que ya tenías amistad está comenzando a interesarse por la política. Entonces, se trata de tener la habilidad de separar el trabajo del placer. Los desacuerdos políticos no deben decidir las amistades y viceversa. Una táctica útil para esta situación, si sientes que podría haber un conflicto de intereses o confusión, es pasar un@ amig@ a otr@ camarada para que estæ sea su contacto principal y reclutador@. Esto da más independencia a dicho amig@ para explorar la política en sus propios términos con menos presión por las implicaciones de que este acuerdo político contigo sea un requisito para dicha amistad.

Un@ nuev@ camarada al que le ha convencido nuestra causa informó cómo otr@ prisioner@ le lanzó una publicación de ULK a su regazo de camino a una audiencia y dijo: “mira, esto te va a gustar.” Much@s de nuestr@s suscriptoræs afirmaron haber descubierto ULK en las zonas comunes. Ambos son ejemplos del “dejar caer”, una técnica para difundir nuestras ideas tanto como sea posible para garantizar que tod@s l@s interesad@s tienen la oportunidad de estar expuest@s a ellas.

Encontrar el equilibrio correcto entre lanzar una amplia red, como la técnica de “dejar caer”, y desarrollar un nuevo cuadro uno a uno es una cuestión táctica complicada. MIM siempre ha errado en el lanzamiento de una amplia red. Esto se basa en la decisión estratégica de que, en nuestras condiciones, es más importante crear opinión pública contra el imperialismo que crear organizaciones de cuadros. No obstante, necesitamos que la gente haga más que leer ULK y nuestro sitio web. No importa si están apoyando o no los proyectos de MIM(Prisons), nosotr@s necesitamos que la gente dé un paso adelante por el antiimperialismo para amplificar esa voz antiimperialista y construir instituciones independientes de l@s oprimid@s. L@s oprimid@s nos contactan todos los días en busca de ayuda. Necesitamos que más camaradas den un paso adelante y creen el poder necesario para proporcionar soluciones reales a sus problemas.

I got your pamphlet from the man who killed himself. I was his neighbor. When it happened he cried for help. In they walk by him like he was not there. For 2 days he cried tears. He cried saying help me! Help me! Sorry I had to get that off my chest.

My wife had to get a lawyer to deal with all the BS that’s been going on. I have a 6 year sentence. I’m not from TX. I’m from LA. My court appointed lawyer tricked me in to signing for time. He told me that I was signing for him to represent me. I had told him that I couldn’t see without my glasses. Then he said that. So I appealed it. They gave me a court appointed lawyer.

I been messed around by the TX system. They play by their own rules. But I like what you are saying.

I am here in the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, and like so few, I try every day to understand the ignorance of not only the staff but also my comrades. They are closed-minded when it comes to life outside the United States and they do not want to listen to some knowledge from someone who is a foreigner, as I am illegal and have no family here in this so-called great country. I really do not see it, as the only thing I came here to do is make money and return back to my homeland with the funds.

As time progressed, I was captured and brought to justice as the newsmedia reported. Well, the reason I’m even writing this is to give someone else the insight and knowledge about how difficult it is to keep in touch with your loved ones outside the United States.

A one-ounce U.S. postal letter costs $1.15 to start with. The Department of Corrections wants you to keep in touch with your loved ones or get a support system, yeah ok. Tell me how, when you can’t get a bar of soap to wash yourself, but I’m going to make a telephone call to my loved ones at a rate of $38 for 15 minutes, and the monthly payroll I receive is only $12 a month with 30% of that taken out for court/admin costs.

That then leaves me enough to send one or two letters that never arrive there. They claim that once it leaves the institution, it is up to the U.S. Postal Service. The Department of Corrections charges me for international mail rates but I don’t get “return to sender” services with it, and like I just said, sometimes it gets lost in delivery.

Where is my mail going to? When the post office tells me to spend money on tracking numbers, but U.S. mail is not the same as international mail, so once it leaves U.S. waters and then enters international waters, the U.S. tracking number becomes null and void and the money is gone just like the mail.

I am trying my best to learn American English, not only to fight for myself but also the next foreigner that gets in trouble in this so-called great country. So, with no help or support I sit here in the tomb and write in hopes that maybe someone will respond and be able to help me out with the necessary logistics, and moral support, etc.

The ignorance and apathy of some of these so-called Americans eats me inside. Why not try to do better for not just yourself but your loved ones? But they act like there is no future for them.

For all my comrades all over the world, I send my blessings and urge you to never stop the fight & struggle.

I read with interest the article on the lack of a constitutional right to a grievance procedure ( Prisoners Unite Against Suppression of VA DOC Grievance Procedure) in ULK 54. This happens to be an issue I researched a few months ago. Unfortunately I’m Federal, not state, so I can’t file a §1983 anyway, which is a shame because I’d just love to take this one to the Supreme Court.

This legal argument should work. However, the only place I can see it working is at the Supreme Court itself. I offer it in the hopes that someone else can run with it.

The article is quite correct. There are many 4th circuit opinions throwing out prisoners’ §1983 actions for denial of or retaliation against filing grievances, most of which go back to Adams v. Rice 40F.3d.72, 75 (4th Cir. 1994). This opinion, however, was before the 1995 Prison Litigation Reform Act, 1997(e). The argument is that, as 1997(e) came later than Adams v. Rice, and congress could not have intended to make a constitutional right (the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances under Amendment 1) contingent upon conduct that is not constitutionally protected, that therefore Adams v. Rice and all subsequent case law should be declared null and void.

Digging a bit deeper, I found that Adams bases its opinion on Flick v. Alba, 932 F.2d 728, 729 (8th Cir 1991) claiming there is “no constitutional right to participate in grievance proceedings.”

The problem with this is that Flick v Alba states, “When the claim underlying the administrative grievance involves a constitutional right, the prisoner’s right to petition the government for redress is the right of access to the courts, which is not compromised by the prison’s refusal to entertain his grievance.” After 1997(e), of course, that last clause is false, 1997(e) specifically and deliberately makes a prison’s refusal to entertain grievances compromise the right of access to the courts. That’s what 1997(e) is for!

If there be any justice, this is a slam-dunk argument. Of course, there isn’t any justice. But occasionally a judge, wanting to gain status by overturning a long-held precedent might do the right thing, if only accidentally. It might also have some value as a rallying point for activism.

One might also argue a violation of equal protection under the fourteenth amendment, but I’m not sure how much that would add. A couple of paragraphs couldn’t hurt, though.

Inmates have no rights of due process inside of prison, and the administration always sides with the word of a correctional officer, even if they are proven to be lying or have done wrong. Some violated rights that all inmates across the country suffer from while in prison are denial of visits if family members who have traveled a long way are even a minute late, denied showers to prisoners, denied phone calls, cut recreation time and frequently used unprofessional and foul language when talking to prisoners.

This is oppression on top of already being oppressed. Demand in solidarity from all prisoners across the country is needed. Demand of an independent investigation, separate from the prison administration, of conditions inside prison. A crucial aspect of such an investigation should include members of the communities being able to conduct uncensored interviews with inmates in order to gather information without the prisoners facing retaliation. Now is the time for all of us to rise up together in solidarity in all prisons as well as our outside forces who have the ability to protest. My dream is to see 1000 people outside this prison with t-shirts, signs and banners while the gangs inside prison are strategically mobilized by political leaders such as myself to overthrow this oppression and reach the demand of due process in all prisons for prisoners. If we don’t take a stand now, all institutions will change for the worse.

Rebellion is the only possible outcome given mistreatment from correctional officers inhumane conditions in prison and the administrations refusal to investigate.

Rogue One: Una historia de Star Wars (2016)

Rogue One trata de la historia desconocida detrás del primer episodio que se produjo de Star Wars (que ahora, cronológicamente, es ahora el IV en la inacabable y productiva saga de películas de Star Wars). En esta película descubriremos cómo se las arregla la Alianza Rebelde para conseguir una copia de los planos de la Estrella de la Muerte, una pieza fundamental de información utilizada para destruir esa arma. Esta película es un sorprendente ejemplo de cómo algunos instrumentos de la cultura capitalista bien financiados pueden gastar millones de dólares para obtener beneficios del entretenimiento. El presupuesto estimado fue de 200 000 000 $; imaginen lo que se podría haber hecho con esos recursos en un sistema que se guiase por las necesidades de la gente en vez de por los beneficios.

Por ese dinero obtenemos una historia que tiene algunos elementos progresistas pero también muchos mensajes discutibles y reaccionarios. Rogue One trata sobre la lucha de la Alianza Rebelde contra el Imperio, lo que puede ser una excelente analogía anti-imperialista. Y hay algunas temáticas sólidas de sacrificio revolucionario y de la unión de l@s oprimid@s para luchar contra un@ enemig@ común en un frente unido. Sin embargo, al final gana el individualismo ya que, por supuesto, eso hace la historia más emocionante en nuestra cultura.

Este episodio supone un esfuerzo bastante satisfactorio de unir los episodios III y IV y nos explica mejor por qué la Estrella de la Muerte podría destruirse por completo la Estrella de la Muerte con un disparo certero. El saboteador detrás de ésta debilidad nos da uno de los muchos ejemplos de sacrificio revolucionario de esta película. Asimismo, ejemplifica cómo es posible que alguien se resista aun estando obligad@ a permanecer en una situación en la que no parece haber resistencia. A pesar de que se describe a este personaje como alguien con capacidades únicas, su forma de actuar sirve de buen ejemplo del axioma existencialista de que siempre hay elección. Esto puede servir de inspiración para aquell@s en los países imperialistas que están rodead@s por enemig@s de clase, o para aquell@s en celdas de aislamiento que no tienen más contacto con el mundo exterior que cartas esporádicas.

Aunque el sacrificio revolucionario es un tema fuerte con muchos personajes en la Rebelión, no es un mensaje propiamente anti-imperialista, como probablemente reafirmen aquell@s que luchan por el imperio de EE UU y que creen que lo que están haciendo está bien. En la película, el Imperio, más que ser un ejemplo de los males del imperialismo, sigue pareciendo una caricatura de lo que Estados Unidos piensa del comunismo. Tod@s van vestid@s con el mismo uniforme y están obligad@s a trabajar para conseguir el dominio militar del mundo bajo el liderazgo de un@ líder egoísta. No obstante, para aquell@s con una mentalidad revolucionaria, podemos simular que quería representar al imperio imperialista, apoyar a la Rebelión y honrar sus sacrificios.

Aparece un grupo que se asemeja a l@s rebeldes árabes que han emprendido el foquismo contra el Imperio, y con l@s que la Alianza Rebelde quiere trabajar a regañadientes. Esta visión es, en cierto modo, mejor que la representación que se suele hacer de l@s árabes en las películas de Hollywood, en las que a menudo son solo terroristas. Pero en este caso aparecen como si no fueran lo suficientemente inteligentes para participar en una batalla unida, haciendo solo lo que ordena el líder y en ataques foquistas aleatorios. Aún así es una imagen bastante estereotipada.

La misma Alianza parece ser un frente unido de varias especies de todo el universo que trabajan juntas para derrotar al Imperio. Esto podría verse como un paralelismo con el frente unido de las naciones oprimidas que será necesario para derribar el imperialismo estadounidense. En la historia humana tenemos grandes ejemplos de frentes unidos entre naciones, como China. Sin Embargo, pero tenemos poca experiencia del frente unido multinacional y de la dictadura colectiva del proletariado que, probablemente, será necesaria tras derribar al imperialismo estadounidense. La Rainbow Coalition (Coalición del Arco Iris) de Fred Hampton en Chicago fue una forma temprana de dicho frente unido pero se reprimió antes de que pudiera surgir una guerra anti-imperialista.

La película utiliza este frente unido para promover actos de desesperación ultraizquierdistas e individualistas. Cuando se estancan en la lucha sobre si deben o no emprender acciones militares o huir y esconderse, un pequeño grupo de combatientes emprenden acciones independientes porque lo único que conocen es la guerra. Es@s son l@s valientes héroes y heroínas de la película. La principal discrepancia dentro del frente unido era sobre si era posible o no ganar en una lucha contra la Estrella de la Muerte. Este debate acerca de las tácticas podría haber sido una buena lección de lucha y unidad, una posibilidad de reunir más información y de ensayar varias tácticas para aprender de la práctica. En vez de eso, se produjo una pequeña discusión verbal y, después, se tomó la decisión de no actuar debido a todas las discrepancias, representando al frente unido como inútil.

En Rogue One aparecen más personajes femeninos de los que suelen aparecer en una película de Hollywood, pero los personajes principales nacieron en sus papeles, en vez de alzarse para tomar posiciones por convicción y trabajo duro, mientras que los personajes principales masculinos superaron grandes dificultades o luchan contra circunstancias personales para rebelarse. A pesar de todo, la gran mayoría de los personajes de la película son masculinos, un hecho extraño para una sociedad de un futuro tan lejano. Sin duda, el patriarcado sigue dominando en Star Wars.

En todas las películas de Star Wars aparecen referencias a “la Fuerza” en mayor o menor grado. En este argumento, la Fuerza se convierte básicamente en una religión, practicada únicamente por un hombre asiático que protege ciegamente el templo (literalmente, es ciego). La fe ciega de este hombre (no es muy sutil) se convierte en una parte importante de la lucha rebelde. Y, en un momento determinado, dicha fe salva la situación, promoviendo de nuevo, un tipo de ultraizquierdismo.

Con todos estos fallos, MIM(Prisons) no puede recomendar Rogue One más que para realizar análisis críticos.

I have been a subscriber to ULK and frequently writer to MIM(Prisons). On December 21, 2016 TDCJ moved me here to the Darrington Unit to attend the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. Originally only 29 students were picked for this year for the class of 2021, me being among them. The Heart of Texas Foundation who bankroll the operation were angry so TDCJ quickly acted to fill up the class to 40 students. I was thoroughly vetted and had been attending class for over 3 weeks.

February 9, 2017 during class Dr. Phillips the person in charge of the Darrington extension, and assistant Warden Denheim pulled me out of class and said they felt I was “not ready for the program.” I asked them if it was due to my grades, behavioral or disciplinary problems. They said no. This is highly inappropriate and I have not been given due process. According to the application I signed I can be removed by TDCJ for disciplinary reasons after a disciplinary hearing or be removed by Southwestern after an appropriate review process. I asked them if this had to do with my case or recent media correspondence with reporters Mike Ward and Jonathan Tilove of the Austin American Statesman. They said no.

I have been in long term seg several years now and have spent a fraction of that time attempting suicide and cutting myself at a severe level. At first I would cut arteries,then progressed to cutting through my abdominal wall and pulling out small-large intestines, literally. My purpose in sharing this with you is that long-term seg causes you to look at everyting differently, mostly in a negative way, causing you to suffer severe mental health issues. There are many here like myself. I’m housed in our prison’s new hospital - mental health unit. The entire prison is experiencing extreme shortages in all staff. COs, nurses, doctors, mental health staff, are to resignations, being fired etc.

A lot has been going on here in the last 2 years. Last year the CO of the hospital and staff were terminated after an investiation where over a million dollars of narcotics had “mysteriously” turned up missing at the loading deck over a long period of time. Doctors are fired for overcharging the state millions of dollars. There are COs that are high ranked gang members.

I’ve personally gotten 4 [unclear] fired and 1 doctor. I have 2 current investigations involving medical staff. I’m in regular contact with NC medical board - board of nursing, disability rights of NC. Oh man, these people love me here. I experience a lot of retaliation, beatings, missing mail, etc.

“Is there ever a time when we should unite with reactionary oppressor nation lumpen orgs in a United Front for Peace in Prisons?” Absolutely! You want to win, don’t you? For anyone to refuse to work with a potentially valuable ally against this Juggernaut Force that both groups are up against, due to a few minor differences in excess views and opinions just sounds like folly. Wars are won by alliances, not the practice of alienation.

History is full of these kinds of examples. The German Nazis were undisputed white nationalist, white supremacy, white racist and everything else white group that there has ever been. The Japanese were anything but Aryan or white, yet despite that obvious fact, the two groups were able to put those differences aside long enough in order to wage war against the rest of the world.

“The enemy of my enemy is my friend.” Now that’s sound logic! If you decide not to join forces with what you refer to as “white nationals,” either because they are “white” or maybe even a little too proud of it, then wouldn’t that sort of put you in the same boat as them, guilty of the same things? Are you perhaps then a little bit racist too?

Are there so many of you that you can afford to be so picky about the skin color, or differences in ideologies of those that we allow to align themselves with you in this fight? Black communist and white nationalist alike, neither can afford to turn away the aid of the other at a time like this – especially in prison.

White nationalists are seasoned and often times expert resistance fighters that come complete with a deep-seated hatred of our most potent enemy, that any group in this fight would be lucky to have on their side, once the real fighting starts. The Federal Government fears them and has always feared them for those very reasons. These members of the White Resistance Movement would bring their own unique skill sets to the struggle, that you might otherwise be lacking in, such as military strategy, connections – in parts of the underground that you’ve never had access to before – military tactics and weapons knowledge, etc.

Now I’m only suggesting cooperation with certain white nationalists and/or separatist individuals here and there, that might want to help, not necessarily white nationalist “groups” per say. This is because these types of groups attract a lot of attention from all the current law enforcement agencies and especially the Federal Government and because of that, each group is already heavily infiltrated by under cover agents. So by uniting with such groups and organizations, you would just be inviting those same numerous agents into the folds of your own group.

There are lots of single disenfranchised ex-members of these groups though, who are solid soldiers and have a lot to offer their next group and I think that it would be a mistake to let them get away, if they are willing to help.

MIM(Prisons) responds: This writer raises some good points about uniting with all who oppose the same enemy, but perhaps goes too far with the pragmatism of allying for the sake of size and skills. We believe there needs to be some clear political unity in order to build a united front. We don’t all have to agree that we want a communist system in the end, but we must have at least one concrete goal that we can unite around in practice. And we also need to agree that political independence is acceptable, as we will not give up our principles just for the sake of convincing someone who disagrees with us to work with us anyway.

Under a bourgeois democracy, militant white nationalists are both tools of and enemies of the state. As imperialism moves closer to fascism the government’s fear lessens as they begin to utilize these groups more directly. We’re not sure if we can say this is happening unter Trump yet though, although ey as already been giving these groups many passes.

Lastly, we want to comment on the idea that it is racist to refuse to unite with white nationalists. It would be incorrect to turn away white allies just for the color of their skin, but it is not incorrect to identify groups of people’s political and economic interests and to identify potential allies based on this. If someone is promoting white nationalism, that is fundamentally opposed to the liberation of oppressed nations: white nationalism is, by definition, a belief in the superiority of the white nation which already has the power and wealth. This sort of nationalism is reactionary and opposing it is not the same thing as being racist. We can unite with these people on specific tasks, while also struggling with them over their line on white nationalism.

I write this letter to report that SCI-Pittsburgh is shutting down due to political reasons. I’m an SRTU (Secured Residential Treatment Unit) prisoner. The SRTU is designed to provide management, programming and treatment for prisoners who exhibit serious mental illness, chronic disciplinary issues, and demonstrate an inability to adapt to a general population setting. According to what Pennsylvania DOC policy states, all inmates are to be transferred to other prisons. The approximate shut down date is June 30, 2017. Staff, officers and prisoners will be relocated between now and June 30.