From Microaggressions to Legalized Lynching: Weaponizing Police Against Black People

By Cherise Charleswell

Thanks to social media's ability to help news headlines (and those stories that don't even make it out through mainstream media) go viral, Black people and other people of color are beginning to receive some vindication. For many years, our testimonies about our lived experiences with micoaggressions and overt racism have often been dismissed. Yes - too many, we were simply playing "the race card."

We are told that we are being overly sensitive, that white privilege doesn't exist, that we should simply just comply, and oh yes - President Barack Obama's election was proof enough that we now live in a post-racial society. Never mind the fact that the election of 45 was the result of a "white lash," which actually proves that the United States, almost two decades into the 21st century, is anything but post-racial. The deep-seated issues of racism, bigotry, and xenophobia continue to exist, and the election of a President whose entire campaign aligned with those attitudes has literally open the floodgates of hate.

However, those of us with melanin-rich skin know that 45 alone isn't to blame for the rise in hate crimes and white supremacy groups , nor is he solely responsible for the racist vitriol that we have openly seen on display since his election. His blatant (he has moved far past the use of "dog whistles") and continued racism, with stereotypical and hateful language that targets specific groups of people, is a sign or symptom of the prevalence of racism, and the United States has been sick for some time.

Black people and other non-Black People of Color (NBPOC) have spent many years pointing out that racist stereotypes, such as one that claims that we have a predisposition for criminal behavior, have translated to Black people constantly being viewed with suspicion and fear. These viewpoints, steeped in racism, have had dire consequences: From the false accusations launched against Emmet Till that led to his brutal murder, to the 1991 murder of 15-year-old Latasha Harlins and the 2012 murder of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, to the removal of a group of Black women on a Napa Valley wine train . There has been a need for white people/dominant society to police Black bodies, and this legacy continues. It is a legacy that is currently manifesting in a rash of publicized incidents, many of which have now gone viral, where white people are calling the police on Black people for simply existing.

These white people are following a long historical tradition of proactively criminalizing Black people. With each incident, they are able to turn mundane interactions into melodramas, and this is all due to their preconceived beliefs about how Black people behave, where they should be allowed access, how they talk, how they dress, and so on. As always, these incidents are initiated and escalated not by the actions of the Black person, but rather by the white person's prejudiced beliefs.

Something that particularly stands out with these calls is that they are overwhelmingly being made by White women, and this is again a continuation of a historical pattern of racism and white supremacy. It is the exact behavior that led to the aforementioned murder of Emmet Till and the lynching of many people of African descent in the United States. It is a notion that Black people/POC present a threat and danger.

All too often, the cruelties of slavery, colonialism, Jim Crow, apartheid, and so on are attributed only to white men, letting white women off the hook. However, this tactic of tattling, calling law enforcement, and literally producing physical "white tears" is how white women have engaged in white supremacy for centuries. Worse yet is that this tactic is also utilized due to envy and the need to assert their position in the structure of global patriarchal white supremacy, stemming from slave-plantation dynamics. Forced rapes and sexual relationships between white men and women slaves on plantations often produced children - clear evidence of their infidelity, something the slaveowner's wife could not openly acknowledge. Therefore, many chose to utilize passive-aggressive tactics against the enslaved people on the plantation, including the enslaved mistress and her offspring. More than a century later, the same passive-aggressive tactics are now wielded in the workplace and just about every social setting. This form of white privilege is so powerful when wielded because it the power to direct lynchings and other forms of violence against Black bodies.

During the first half of 2018 there has been many instances of weaponizing the police to carry out "legal lynchings" initiated by white women's tears. A quick review of a few of these incidents include:

- An incident in New York where a former White House staffer was accused of breaking into his own apartment.

- The incident where Donnish Prendgast, daughter of Sharon Marley and granddaughter of Bob Marley, had the police called on her by a white woman, while checking out of an AirBnB in Rialto, California with three other filmmakers. She and her cohorts were stopped by at least seven police cars and a helicopter after the white woman who called claimed that they were "stealing stuff."

- An incident with a contractor in Memphis Tennessee where a White woman calls the police on a Black real estate investor inspecting a house next door.

- The infamous incident at a Starbucks in Philadelphia Pennsylvania that led to Starbucks closing thousands of stores for diversity training.

- The incident at Yale University where police were called after a Black Yale student fell asleep in the Common room, while trying to work on a paper. More about the caller and her history of racially-charged statements here .

- The Waffle House incident in Alabama that all began when a Black woman asked for a complimentary (which is standard in most dine-in restaurant) plastic utensil.

- The infamous case of BBQ Becky up in Oakland California who called the police on a family trying to have a Cook out at Lake Merrit.

- One carried out by White men against Black women at a golf course in Pennsylvania . Where police were called on the group of 5 because they were apparently golfing "too slow."

- And the most recent case of a white woman, now referred to as " Permit Patty ," threatening to call the police on a Black girl who was selling bottled water outside her apartment building.

Note that a number of these incidents occurred in States and cities that are considered to be more "liberal."

By the time BBQ Becky made yet another false and unwarranted call to the police we had become oversaturated with these stories, and Black people have had to lean on one of our traditional strategies for survival - Laugh Rather Than Cry - because the constant barrage of microaggressions and racism can take its toll. How this stress impacts the health outcomes of Black people and other minority groups is well documented (see here ) and is actually linked to health disparities . This is why laughter as a coping mechanism is necessary. This is something that Black Twitter carries out so well. And when it came to BBQ Becky, the proliferation of memes on social media ( see here) shows why Black Twitter remains undefeated when it comes to producing poignant, thought-provoking, honest, informative, and truthful commentary in a biting, sarcastic, blunt, humorous, and unapologetic manner.

However, after we laugh and cry, we truly need to consider how we will finally deal with this issue, because the problem is far more than implicit bias - which helps to reassure these white callers that the police will most likely side with them in interactions with Black people and other minority groups. It is as if they are certain of this outcome, and that is why they make these calls so quickly. Then there is the fact that minority communities have not had great interactions with law enforcement historically, and are thus less likely to call them for minor disputes, especially when a white person is the aggressor. Just consider the incident that occurred in a Santa Monica California parking lot. Santa Monica is a place which many are led to believe is liberal, "open-minded," "tolerant," etc. The incident involved was a parking lot dispute which quickly elevated when an White man hurled racial slurs against a Black woman, followed by physical violence, where he attempted to kick her.

Then there was an elderly white woman who attacked a pregnant Black US veteran . In both cases, despite being the actual victims, the Black person did not call law enforcement.

Why didn't they call?

Because, they knew that they would most likely be seen as the aggressor, not the victim. And this means that they could be arrested, assaulted, or even murdered.

That is just it - it is the threat of bodily harm and/or lethal force carried out by law enforcement that makes these calls so problematic and sinister (these callers have to know what they are doing!). Despite the consequences, which can include the state-sanctioned murder of Black people and other minority groups, white people continue to make these calls. Thus, it is not only a misuse of law enforcement, it is a matter of using white privilege - and weaponizing law enforcement to carry out "legal" lynchings.

Further, these calls make it difficult for Black people to exist, go on with our lives, and live carefree, simply because of the color of our skin. Even while minding our business, we are being criminalized. We can't barbecue, we can't golf, we can't sit at restaurants, we can't carry out our jobs in peace, we can't go golfing, and we can't even request utensils at a restaurant without a racist making an unjustified call to law enforcement.

It is time to "Strip the power of the White aggressor away"

Knowing that there are dire and legal consequences to these false/unwarranted calls. They need to be treated like a public-health problem. Research is needed, as well as interventions and changes in protocols, as well as policy/legislation.

1. Intermediate interventions that will act as a deterrent for these false calls should involve implementing fines or arrests/charges on these callers, due to misuse of the emergency call system and tax-payer funded law enforcement resources.

2. Changes in policy or protocols should be mandated for 911 operators who receive these calls. They should be trained to quickly assess the legitimacy of these calls - and whether there is an actual emergency occurring. Or whether there is just a racist/bigot on the other end of the phone. In the vast majority of these calls, there was no threat of danger that even mandated officers being deployed.

3. Responding officers need to also be held accountable for their role, particularly when it comes to false arrests and imprisonment, which is what occurred when two African American men were arrested and incarcerated after sitting at a Pennsylvania Starbucks restaurant, for a timespan of two minutes, while waiting for a colleague. Many witnesses came forth to attest to the fact that the men had done nothing wrong, yet they were still arrested by police. Many may argue that more training is needed for law enforcement, but they already receive extensive training. And no one should have to be trained to acknowledge other's humanity. So, a different approach is needed. Something more must be done to assist officers in choosing to use discernment if they respond to one of these calls. Alternative strategies can include: subjecting officers with personal fines, responding with lawsuits regarding false imprisonment against police officers and personally against arresting officers, formally defining these incidents as misconduct and making the necessary documentation on the arresting officers personnel file, etc.

In the end, one truly has to ask, is it really that hard to NOT be an asshole?

Here is a flow chart to assist you with determining when it is the appropriate time to call the police.

Try to Live and Let Live and realize that Black people and PoC have a right to exist. In closing, a message to BBQ Becky: instead of calling the police, all you had to do was ask for some food, and understand that we simply do not want to eat your potato salad.

Dismantle the Pipeline: A Review of Susan Anglada Bartley's "A Different Vision: A Revolution Against Racism in Public Education" (Luminare Press)

By David Gilbert

School was always a breeze for me. "Correct English" came naturally--it was the way people spoke at home. As for social studies, I was well-versed in the mythology of American democracy that masqueraded as "history." My parents instilled confidence that I could excel at science and math, which they saw as a career path for me. It was only in my college years--as I became intent on understanding why some people are obscenely rich while as many others are desperately poor--that I started to get into trouble.

Unusually well-educated for a New York State (NYS) prisoner--the average incoming inmate is at a 6th grade level--I've done a lot of work as a teacher's aide and a tutor. Early on I was struck by a conundrum: Many otherwise bright and brave guys just froze when it came to academic work. After many conversations I saw a frequent pattern: from early on in school they were treated as discipline problems, not as promising learners, and often humiliated and punished. Rather than accept a framework that made them feel stupid, they decided that school was b.s. And that they would prove their self-worth in the streets. In communities where decent manufacturing jobs fled but where the "War on Drugs" made them a lucrative trade, that seemed like the ready route to wealth and prestige. Before long, of course, that led to incarceration. Welcome to the school-to-prison pipeline. In NYS, Blacks and Latinos/as constitute 37% of the population and 72% of state prisoners.

Susan Anglada Bartley is a passionate anti-racist educator. Her new book, A Different Vision, looks at the school-to-prison pipeline as part of a fundamentally white supremacist education system. The various forms of exclusion are key--the ways students of color are told they are slow learners, are tracked away from college preparation courses, and are disproportionately subjected to harmful forms of discipline. The latter isn't just a product of cultural misunderstandings with white teachers; studies show that students of color are treated much more harshly for the same behaviors as whites. Once students are held out of the classroom, they're much more likely to fall behind on their work and then drop out. In the U.S. Black students are 3 times more likely than whites to be suspended or expelled, which foreshadows the 6 to 1 Black to white incarceration rate for males. Another school-to-prison pipeline has been built over the past 40 years, for the flow of dollars, as funding for incarceration has increased at twice the rate of that for education.

I cringed at A Different' Vision's description of how humilation is a standard technique for keeping students in line. As a teacher at Franklin High School (FHS) in Portland, Oregon, Anglada Bartley learned how to move away from that and toward engagement. She realized that especially as a white teacher, she had to earn the trust of her Black, Latino/a, Native American, and Asian students which she does in part by being willing to tell brief stories about her own life. She makes an effort to talk with students at eye level rather than down to them; she addresses issues individually rather than dressing students down in front of the class; she never writes them up for disciplinary punishment. More importantly, she's a big enough person to learn from her students and to acknowledge that.

To keep a class together without acting as a tyrant, a teacher needs a relevant and lively curriculum. To do so, a teacher has to learn about her students and their range of ethnic and linguistic backgrounds in order to create a culturally welcoming environment. While Anglada Bartley doesn't present a lot on curriculum in the sense of the subject matter, which would entail volumes in itself, she cites the best source of articles and references on that, Rethinking Schools Magazine. I would have liked to see her say more about the ways challenging white supremacy could also benefit many whites--when we can overcome clinging to privilege and pride of place--through more funding going to public education; wider availability of college; and a fuller, truer, richer understanding of history and culture.

Anglada Bartley knows her students can excel. In 2007, mentored and supported by an outstanding, Black principal, Dr. Charles Hopson, she created an Advanced Scholars Program (ASP) at her high school. The program encouraged students who might otherwise be tracked out to take the advanced placement courses so crucial to getting into succeeding at college; each student was provided a mentor. By 2016, ASP had 465 students, and every participant went on to higher education; seven of them became Gates Millennium Scholars; FHS overall, with more than 50% of students living in poverty, had a graduation rate within one point of the wealthiest school in the district.

After Anglada Bartley won all kinds of accolades and prestigious awards for this stunning success, the hostility of a new white administrator and some resentful teachers resulted in restrictions that undermined her work and led her to leave FHS. While A Different Vision has many useful examples of teaching methods, the other, essential dimension of the book involves the broader fight against white supremacy in education and in society at large. The needed changes can't happen when 82% of the teachers and 88% of the administrators are white for a population nove moving past 50% students of color. They can't happen when funding is so unequal and inadequate, when students of color have to worry about violence and incarceration, and when they face difficulty getting quality jobs. Given those realities, A Different Vision strongly advocates building active movements and coalitions from below involving the communities, parents, educators and students to challenge white supremacy and fight for quality education. That's the road to "a different vision"-- "One in which empowerment replaces humiliation, relationships replace control. One in which respect for humanity and our earth are central [...]" (223-4)

Challenging the Music Industry's Commodity Complex: An Interview with Punk-Rock Guerilla, Justin Pearson

By Mimi Soltysik

This interview originally appeared at The Socialist , the official publication of the Socialist Party USA.

"Would the owner of an ounce of dignity please contact the mall security?"

- The Locust

What Justin Pearson has done and continues to do as an artist isn't going to be for everyone. It's a challenge. Perhaps it's a threat. Notes and shrieks spray like bullets through the speakers. Our attention, so thoroughly bombarded by the mass marketing of apathy, pacification, and complacency, is the target. While critics fawn over his work with The Locust, Dead Cross, and RETOX, Justin's resume reads (and sounds) like a massive "fuck you" to a dying music industry's lowest-common-denominator commodity complex. As a longtime fan, I'm here for it. A passive discussion with Justin Pearson might be possible. But when you have a minute with a punk rock guerrilla, why go passive?

Mimi : The first time I saw you perform was with the Locust back in 2000 at the Smell in L.A. At the time, it sounded to me like the audio companion to systems collapse. I mean no offense when I say that. It felt like a storm was brewing and the Locust was going to be the soundtrack. Eighteen years later, it seems to have been somewhat prophetic. Since then, we've had the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the financial crisis, incredibly bleak news about climate change, and of course, Donald Trump. And all of this happening at a point where, with social media, we're seeing the collapse in real time. I'm wondering what you were feeling, as an artist, that led to that sound? What was your environment like? Was there a relationship between the socio-political environment and what you were creating musically? How does an album like "Plague Soundscapes" fit today?

Justin : Thanks for the analogy of our sound. I think you are pretty accurate in that description. I think that music in a much broader platform, perhaps addressed just as art in general, can draw from non-musical aspects. Where one would ask a band what their musical influences are to understand what pushes them to do what they do, it might be just as important, or maybe even more important to address the things outside of music that are influential. Of course, what we do is subjective and anyone can interpret it how one wants to. And even with that being said, most of the time, for me at least, I am not even aware of what might have influenced something I was part of when it's coming to life. So with The Locust and probably a lot of stuff I'm part of, influences come from social politics, culture, economics, and then it also brings in science fiction, absurdity, subversion, and probably a million other elements that helped shape what we do. I do feel, unfortunately in 2018, something like The Locust's "Plague Soundscapes" is relevant, both musically and lyrically. Perhaps even aesthetically still relevant too. I grew up thinking that it's the job of artists to reflect what the world that they live in consists of, and with that, it's also their job to change it or influence change. But with all that being said, it's just music, or just art. It's not like we are great revolutionaries in the world. However, it is music that transcends certain things such as age, gender, language, geography, etc. It speaks to people, it enables people to do certain things, and at times, keeps people alive. But a lot of the stuff you mentioned, such as the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as stuff like climate change and possibly the overall destruction of the planet, were already on our radar. Those were things that we were aware of at the time, so I wouldn't call it prophetic, but more accurately just being aware of the world as a whole. Sure, before Rump managed to get into office, it seemed impossible and extremely absurd. But if you were to consider a lot that has happened previous to that, such as Vietnam, the assassination of Kennedy, the Nixon administration and Water Gate, even Reagan, a crappy actor, becoming President, it all seemed unimaginable.

On a basic musical level, I have always been drawn to what some might see as non-traditional musical elements. I grew up with stuff like PIL, Septic Death, This Heat, and even more known artists like Cecil Taylor, or maybe even Sigue Sigue Sputnik. So stuff like that coupled with not having a proper musical education possibly translated into the general realm of what I have been part of. And with those musical influences, they all seem to have depth to what they did. It wasn't the run-of-the-mill lowest common denominator music that is often what is marketed on a larger level. I grew up really resonating with stuff that people thought was garbage.

Mimi : I think that the piece about the impact that outside influences can have on songwriting might be overlooked a bit. I'm glad you brought that up. Would it be safe to say that, with something like the new Dead Cross EP, we're hearing that impact, or is there a concerted effort to put something together that has a specific sound? And shit, how are you feeling in 2018? I don't know that I see many cases where artists are asked how they might be holding up emotionally. It's such a big consideration within organizing and activism circles. How are we taking care of ourselves? Are we supporting another? Seriously, how are you?

Justin : I wish there was an easy answer. For me, what I end up doing, or being part of, usually stems from my subconscious, or comes from something that might include elements that I am not initially aware of. It's the retrospect where I can fully study the outcome of something that I was part of. I can breathe and dissect it with ease and in peace (with myself). I think over the years, while everything that happened, tons of weird energy was exchanged and moved. It made sense to some degree, but it took time to really see the broader picture or possible understand the magnitude of something. I'm not sure if that makes sense or not. I suppose, the simplistic way to answer that part of this question would be that fortunately things seem to come organically, for the most part. However with that being said, organically doesn't mean that it's a simplistic way, or a peaceful experience, or that it comes from a natural space. So moving into the later part of your question, about the era that we are in, it's grim in many respects. It's more and more absurd. I feel a great deal more anxiety than what I felt in recent years. It seems that time might be running out. I can feel the tension in the air, and smell the shit that is lingering. But with that being said, I can see new ideas, I feel rad power from people, and change is being birthed and evoked in a lot of creative and powerful stuff. Man, this is a massive, massive topic to try to articulate and nail down in a simple answer. I guess over all, I see things being polarized. I do think that might be what was and is needed, to avoid the stagnation that seemed to keep everything at bay. For so long, I could see that nasty band-aid on everything was gonna fall off eventually. It sure seems to have fallen.

Mimi : The band-aid metaphor really strikes a chord, no pun intended. From where folks on the radical left stand, capitalism is a cancer that is consistently growing. Reforms are essentially band aids, providing some minor relief and perhaps offer a veneer of progress. But with each band aid applied, the cancer grows. It seems like we're getting to a place where the band aids no longer offer that veneer, that hope. I mean, for so many oppressed communities throughout the world, there's been no band aid. And I'm seeing little hints here and there that some are in the U.S. are becoming aware of that. In that context, do you have feelings about the potential impact of your music, whether it be RETOX or Dead Cross? Your audiences are living in that context. Do you feel any sense of responsibility to play a role in how we move forward? To how your audience perceives your output and where they might go with that perception? And I do acknowledge that, when I'm asking this, I know that this is some heavy shit. I know of very, very few artists who would be willing to engage in this kind of dialogue and I have tremendous respect for you in agreeing to participate.

Justin : It's so interesting to do this interview. I'm also doing some press for the Dead Cross EP that just came out and to be honest, most of the questions I get are garbage, have no substance, and are not challenging aside from challenging me to figure out how to write something interesting to a vague irrelevant inquiry. So thank you for providing the opposite of that stuff.

As for the concept of responsibility, you are correct, that is a massive topic. I'm not trying to take the easy way out, but I don't feel that I'm responsible for anyone aside from myself. When someone creats art that is in the public sector, it can reach one other person, or a million other people and I still don't think that the artist is responsible for anyone outside of themselves. Maybe that is the part of me who identifies with the concept of anarchy. But for me, I feel I have aligned myself with people to communicate certain things, or even just one certain general thing. We then say what we have to say, maybe over and over each time we play, or with each album, and so on. We are calculated, educated, and aware, for the most part. Once we create that art, we can also learn from it, and adjust it, for the next attempt. Then we grow on our own, and hold ourselves responsible for our own actions and words. Or perhaps we adjust that thing being communicated and see if we can speak differently, and possibly set things straight outside of ourselves. A song is something that might not be linear, it's not physical. It's energy and that energy at times goes beyond language, class, race, geography, gender, etc. I think I might be going down a wormhole here, trying to figure out how to address the responsibility on an artist, but it might be the artist who are reflecting the world that they live in. It could be the world's voice. At least it is for myself. So maybe the responsibility could be placed on the world that we live in, which is what created the art.

Mimi : Why do you think that questions posed to artists are frequently garbage? What do you think fans lose as a result? I mean, I know there are probably many who feel that's "just the way it is" or that "it's the nature of the beast", but does it have to be that way? I also wanted to ask you, as someone who has been involved with the music business for quite some time, albeit not necessarily in the employ of the major labels, how do you think the music business might be different if it was run on a socialist model, where the workers owned and controlled production, where they had democratic control over process, and where the full value of their labor couldn't be exploited from above?

Justin : I assume there are a few reason why interviews are garbage. For one, the person conducting the interview isn't always invested in it. Perhaps there is some sort of need to get a piece about a band's new album, so the publication just assigns the interview to whoever works there. I really don't care to talk about how Dead Cross started, or what the date was when we put the band together, or why we play hardcore. You can Google those answers. And with questions like that, it's void of conversation and substance. You can tell, even out of ten or so questions, where there isn't one thing that is unique or specific to the band, that they are just uninterested. It's almost like it makes more work for the band to come up with a way to spin something that won't come off as boring and general just to locate some sort of substance. I'm not sure that socialism would play into making an interview be better for a certain publication. I think more so, it's just people being lazy, or being told what to do, or people being uneducated, or perhaps it's part of some facet of a broken industry. I have done way too many fill-in-the-blank interviews over time to really understand why they even still exist. You'd assume with the internet, and blogs, that people would be able to create new things and communicate about genuine things by people who are genuine. There are really awesome publications out there and great interviews do exist. But at the end of the day, I'm not in a place to pass up interviews, since they could help with a show, or a tour, or perhaps equate to at least one new listener.

Mimi : When did Dead Cross start? Just kidding. At the end of the day, while what you do is art, it's also how you make a living. Do you feel that artists, and you specifically, are treated fairly for the work they do? And how do you think a broken music industry can repair? Is it possible? If Justin Pearson was tasked with fixing the music industry, what would he do?

Justin : Good one! Make a living? Another good one. You are on a roll here. I often reference this thing that John Waters once said to me, something like, if you want to make art that is legit and by your own standards, you have to intern for yourself for roughly forty years before you make money. So I'm half way there by those guidelines. But as far as fixing something like the music industry, shit. If I had an answer to that I wouldn't be doing this interview. I'd be a wealthy philanthropist and my intern could answer this for me. But maybe there is no need to fix the industry, or at least no need for me to come up with a way to do so. It's done a great job at killing itself over the past few decades. It's been rude and arrogant. But with that being said, to me, the industry as it's perceived, is becoming more and more irrelevant. I see music in a much larger picture. Music is more than sound for me. It's part of something bigger that fits under the umbrella of art. There are aspects that are part of music, such as intellect, chance, aesthetic, and so on, that are never the industry focal point. Making profit was never an objective. And with that, we can take it a bit further. It wasn't something that was done for fun. It was a necessity in our lives. It still is that very same thing.

Mimi : You wrote on your label's website that you "started Three One G in hopes to better the quality and creativity of stuff that I was part of, as well as the music culture that I am part of - something obtainable, tangible, and real." Would you say that, to achieve that goal, that hope, ownership (not in some sort of greedy "it's mine, asshole!" way, but in a direct involvement way) of the process is necessary? And as possible advice for artists who might have an interest in taking a similar approach, what are you doing to realize that vision? Are there artists that may have forged a path that you've been following?

Justin : I mean, the creator of something is the owner. Or we could use a different term I suppose. Something less capitalistic, ha! But nonetheless, we own what we create in my opinion. Nonetheless, the concept of obtainable, tangible, and real is basically something that my ethics are derived from. You know, the basic ideals behind what "punk" was born out of, and what later became known as DIY. We all can do this stuff. I'm not special. We can all own our creations. We can also give that stuff away for $8.99 or for gas money, or a floor to sleep on, or whatever it is that we need to survive. Whatever we feel is suitable. As for artists who steered me on a path, I would say that Dischord was easily one of the biggest influences on my early life in the world of music. Then Ebullition, which I ended up releasing records on. And then later, perhaps Gravity. I think those tree labels are what have collectively made Three One G what it is.

Mimi : Dischord was probably the first time I'd seen some sort of ethics introduced on what might be called the "business" side of things. I still look at what Dischord's done - frequently - and find inspiration. It's like Ian MacKaye found a way to say "fuck you," in a really empowering way, to the gross excess of corporate music. You mentioned a bit ago that you see these glimpses of power coming from the people. Are you seeing those glimpses in the music community? Are there things you might be seeing from your side of things that the rest of us aren't quite yet? Where do you think music might be headed? Where might the industry overall be headed? I hear arena rock artists like KISS (fuck Gene Simmons, by the way) say that they might not make full-length albums any longer because there's no money in it, that they won't be paid fairly for their work.

Justin : My reference to power might be misconstrued. Power definitely has a negative or oppressive element to it. But I think I meant power more along the lines of energy that humans exchange, and sometime though music, and therefore, a positive concept. I suppose my terminology comes from stuff like The Stooges "Raw Power," other than some bullshit spewed out by Ian Stewart. As for the music community, just like the music industry, I'm not sure I have answers there. I think outside of those guidelines. And again, if I knew where things were headed, I would prepare myself. I just have no idea where most things on this planet are headed.

Mimi : I just gotta ask. What does "punk" mean to you? Is punk inherently an expression of resistance or rebellion? If it is, do you think it's a good sign when a band like Motley Crue covers a Sex Pistols song?

Justin : Awe, the "what is the meaning of life" question. I can certainly tell you what punk doesn't mean to me, which is Sid Vicious, or the commercialized image of nihilism. To me, it's cultural, political, social, progressive, and a million other things. Punk is James Chance deciding to wear a suit and play a sax since punk was said to be the opposite. Punk is The Weather Underground, pet rescues, re-purposing the bourgeoisie's trash, the Me Too movement, sustainable living, Planned Parenthood - it's everywhere.

Mimi : There's been a lot that you've said that would be fairly-well in alignment with what we might call "radical." The interesting thing about radical ideas, to me, is that when you say them out loud, they appear to be common sense, like they are just expressions of care and support. Yet, in the U.S., those ideas are packaged as being subversive or worse. Do you think we'll see the day in this country where we'll penetrate the propaganda surrounding radical/revolutionary politics and shift toward models that see people, not profit, as the priority? I mean, I think we can understand why the rich would have an interest in protecting their power and systems of exploitation and oppression. Do you feel like it's a foregone conclusion that they will maintain that power? You're going to have fans that will read this. What message would you have for them about the roles they might play in fighting that oppression and exploitation?

Justin : I do think ideas that were once looked at as radical are the norm now. It just takes times. Unfortunately too much time though. It's like that saying, change comes one funeral at a time. When I was fifteen, and had to stick up for LBGTQ+ friends as well as myself, or when I decided to have a plant based diet, or even when I started playing music, all of that stuff was so out there, and people thought it was crazy. Now, all of it seems normal. Homophobia is not acceptable by any means, you can get vegan food just about anywhere now, and my first band sounds like stuff you hear on the radio or on TV now. It just takes a lot of time, but it will change. I'm not sure it's necessarily a class thing though. I do feel that there are wealthy progressive people, who do good for the people. However, it's the oppressive forces in charge who use the idea of having people hate downwards to keep others oppressed. We've seen it first hand, in our faces recently, with the white middle class hating the poor. But as far as a message to send, in relation to oppression and exploitation, I'm not sure. That is a massive space to try to fill with one's ideas. I do think, no matter what class one falls into, it's extremely important to pay attention where you spend your money and what it's going to. That is the real way to vote, by how you spend, or don't spend your money. We can bring down corporations by being smart and funding progressive entities and not the garbage ones out there.

Mimi : Before we wrap up, I want to thank you for doing this interview. I've seen very, very few artists agree to engage with a radical publication. Why do you think that is? And why did you agree to do this?

Justin : Perhaps a lot of artists are scared to make not be known where they stand on things. Or they don't care to discuss such topics. I agreed for a couple reasons. I'll pretty much do any interview that someone wants to do with me. I'm grateful for that in itself, being aware that someone cares to some extent about the stuff I am part of. But with you, I was pretty psyched to get into an interesting conversation. If anything, it's a honor to have you want to talk with me about the stuff we have covered.

Mimi : Again - many, many thanks. I really appreciate that you've taken the time to do this. In parting, I think there are going to be a lot of radicals/revolutionaries reading this who are just learning about what you've done. What about you, as an artist, do you feel is the most important piece or takeaway that folks walk away with? Any parting words you might have for the comrades?

Justin : Speaking of how interviews pan out, the parting ways last words part is so fucked. Especially to fellow comrades. Ha! There is a lot that we should be discussing, and a lot that I could, or should say, but where do I start or what is punctual enough to wrap this up? I guess I can leave it with a quote that I reference almost daily.

"The opposite of love is not hate, it's indifference" - Elie Wiesel

Thank you for taking the time to talk to me.

South Carolina Prisoners Reflect on Causes of Violence in Prisons, and Solutions

By Jared Ware

The deadliest incident of violence in a United States prison in a quarter century took place at the Lee Correctional Institution in South Carolina on April 15, 2018.

According to multiple reports , including SCDC Director Bryan Stirling's own, prison guards and EMTs made no attempt to break things up or lend medical aid from moment the fight commenced until hours after it was over, while imprisoned people were beaten and stabbed to death. Seven people were killed and dozens were injured, with at least twenty two requiring hospitalization.

On April 22, I interviewed three individuals from various prisons inside the South Carolina Department of Corrections. One of the prisoners identified himself as a member of Jailhouse Lawyers Speak, a group of imprisoned human rights advocates that has made national calls to action for a prisoner-led strike in response to the conditions they feel are truly responsible for the violence and hopelessness within prisons across the United States. The strike is expected to begin on August 21st, 2018.

Throughout our conversation, these three individuals, who are identified only as D, S, and E to protect their identities and prevent retaliation by prison officials, highlight the impacts of policies pushed by President Bill Clinton's administration and implemented by states across the country. They also point to the dehumanization of prisoners and challenge our conception of "gangs," which does not take into account the ways in which incarcerated people are forced to create their own collective means for safety, survival, and camaraderie in a situation where hope is the scarcest commodity.

They also urge the public to reconsider the nature and source of violence within prisons and the absence of human dignity and a rehabilitative environment within our nation's prisons. They present actionable solutions to mitigate some of the harm caused by prisons on our ultimate path toward shedding carceral responses to legitimate societal needs.

As I write this introduction on May 2nd, 2018, South Carolina prisoners have confirmed that all Level 2 and 3 facilities have remained on a statewide lockdown since April 15th. This means people imprisoned in facilities have been denied any freedom of movement, regular access to showers, recreation, or meals outside the confines of their cells.

We grant permission for individuals and news organizations to republish this interview in its entirety for their audiences. It is imperative that we deepen conversations around the causes of violence in prisons and the real impacts of incarceration on all people, inside and outside the walls.

Editor's note: this transcript has been lightly edited for clarity.

Jared : Firstly, for context for folks who are reading this, there have been a lot of things that have gone down in South Carolina prisons over the last year or two, if you guys could lay down some of that context for people, because I think a lot of people don't understand some of the things that prisoners throughout South Carolina have been dealing with and how those conditions might contribute to prisoners really feeling a sense of hopelessness?

D : I'm going to take you back a little step here, to 1996 at least. I'll cover it a little bit, and I'll be as brief as possible. Prior to Bill Clinton's Prison Litigation Reform Act, anti-terrorism act, these acts that went into full effect in 1996, initiated what is known as the 85% or Truth In Sentencing [1] throughout most of the states inside this nation today. It's not just necessarily something that incubated inside the South Carolina, it was actually national. There was a domino effect, okay? But in 1996, specifically, the reason why I'm pinpointing that is because at that particular point in the state of South Carolina, there was no such thing as a natural life sentence in the department of corrections. There was no such thing as a forever-type sentence, where individuals thought that they weren't going to be able to get out.

Even if you had a violent offense, or a labeled-violent offense, you still had something known as a work release date. You still would have some type of eligibility to go to work release, and that also meant the eligibility to go to work at some place on the street, or go home even on the weekends in the state of South Carolina. They had opportunity to make state pay [2] during that particular time period. Even when you [were] at what was known as the max yard. These yards [were] clearly open, everybody could roam and move around free.

But when 1996 set in, and you had this mindset that started to kicked in, that was known, as Hillary Clinton called [it], as locking down these "super predators." They called it also the War on Drugs, which I call the war on the Black and Brown community. All these things is playing into effect at that particular time period, and that created the environment inside.

We found fences starting to be wrapped into the prisons, we found prisoners that was labeled as violent offenders, was sent into these fences, and caged into buildings all day. We found that the food started deteriorating, we saw the clothes removed, and we saw the ways that [imprisoned people] could make money removed out of the system. There was no longer any type of state pay. Even though state pay was very minimal, it was still an opportunity to buy a bar of soap or a Honey Bun or something like that. We saw that visitation was being restricted.

It was just a host of things that started being incubated. And then the hopelessness set in. Because what happened then is we started having these life sentences coming through under 85 percent, where prisoners knew they were never going to see daylight again. We started having what we call "football numbers:" 80, 100, 150 years coming through 85 percent [time served, where prisoners knew they were] never going to see daylight again.

So this is where actually a lot of the problems started accumulating. And not only that, but actually education was removed by the prison system. Any type of Pell Grants, all that was gone. Education, technical colleges, everything was removed. So that's a little bit of a picture of what kind of started to shape the environment back here.

Jared : Thank you, so that changed obviously the overall conditions of how prisons across the country changed and sort of the hopelessness that set in. Can you talk to me a little bit though of some of the specific things that happened in South Carolina over the last couple of years?

D : And this is when the most sadistic mindsets start to set in. Prisoncrats… And I'm going to [let] the brother answer that one.

S: So for one, as the brother was just telling you with the "football numbers," prisoners got a lot of time to serve, but actually with nothing to do. When they took away all the privileges, they took away a lot of the programs. Stuff like that, it leads to just standing around with nothing to do, except to indulge in negative behavior, and reactionary behavior, and just all different forms of escapism--whatever they can do to pass the time.

They drug test you so they can take away your privileges. Why do they need drug testing inside the prisons? People are already in here doing time, it's irrelevant. I can see if somebody's getting ready to go home for parole or something like that and you're going to test them, but just to constantly test them, that's kind of like a waste of money. They always waste their funds on things they don't need to waste their funds on. [1]

We have no means of supporting ourselves because there's no state pay. Because we have no state pay, we have no way to eat. As the brother said, even though it was just a little bit of money, but it still was something. You still could buy some hygiene [products].

When they do lockdown, they're supposed to give you showers Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, whatever the lockdown be for. But they don't ever honor it. They want to do one cell at a time, and it'll take you a whole week before you get a shower. You have some prisons where the water system is messed up. Particularly at Lieber [Correctional Institute], their water system has been messed up forever. When you flush the toilet or pour your water, it smells like rotten eggs. They say it has sulfur in it or whatever, but it eats up the actual metal, and causes mold and stuff to be all over the prison. If they were to go do a tour through that prison right now, and they go all the way from the lock-up to the yard, the ceiling is falling in, metal hanging down, it's dripping all over the place, mold is all over the place, people who are in prison for 15-20 years are dying from cancer. But they don't have no cigarettes inside, you feel me?

We're confined to a cell a lot. They do a lot of counts and the counts always last for a long period of time. The purpose of counting is to make sure that we're here. In all reality, they should just count us and then let us back out for recreation. If you count from the time you eat dinner on a Friday night to your next meal on a Saturday, it's 17-18 hours before you get your next meal. And on the daily basis, you're talking about 12 to 13 hours from when you get your first meal to your next meal, that's almost like a half a day, that's a long time.

So you eat up all your [food purchased from the] canteen, which forces you to go the canteen and spend a lot of money on a bunch of a junk that they price gouge, that's super high, but this money is coming from their family members who are out there working hard to help support you as well.

D : One of the things that has not fully been addressed in South Carolina is the nature and culture of disrespect from the officers inside the South Carolina Department of Corrections, as well. They have completely in my eyes mastered the art of dehumanizing prisoners. Once again, we have to keep in mind they intentionally went into an overdrive of taking the prisoners clothes. Not only taking the prisoners clothes, cutting the prisoners hair the same way, had it to where you can't have your money in your pocket, just a number of things to take away your individuality. And in the process of taking away your individuality, they begin to treat you as if you were garbage. What I mean by treat you as garbage, just by dehumanizing us it makes it easier for them to abuse us, and this abuse a lot of times takes place as physical abuse.

We had in the Super Max Units out in Columbia, South Carolina maybe about a year or two ago, guards bumrush a prisoner inside his cell, stab him up. We've always had a number of incidents with regards to them cuffing prisoners, then cut prisoners up, slamming prisoners on their heads. In some cases we've had some mysterious deaths, some hangings that prisoners are clearly not comfortable with labelling them as hangings on these maximum security prisons.

We've also had incidents where prisoners, when he speaks of recreation, understand something about this recreation a lot of places and a lot of areas right now, prisoners are no longer getting rec at all. It's like every blue moon before we even see any sunlight or daylight to be able to get rec. What we are finding is that, that itself is causing a lot of attitude problems. A lot of aggressiveness.

When we talk about the food, we don't get any fruit, no real fruit anyway. At one time they actually had salad bars; they removed all of that over two decades ago. Now you get nothing. Some of the food is labeled "not for human consumption." So these are normal things that we are actually dealing with inside the prison system.

For visitation, there's no contact with your visitor, with your loved ones. One kiss in, one kiss out. Rather than a hug, sit down, embrace each other. Be in the comfort of each other's company. We're finding that is moving further and further away, and I'm very fearful that we're moving to the stage of video visits very soon, in the very near future.

Jared : Talk a little bit about the angle of this around technology. Bryan Stirling has been for at least a year now, probably more, he's been on this kick about getting cell phones out. You know there was this sort of fairly high profile escape less than a year ago, and they blamed cell phones for that. And they're also blaming this riot on cell phones. They're talking about phone jammers. So just talk a little bit about cell phones in relation to the prisons and what they mean or provide to prisoners and how realistic some of these narratives or fears that are being stated by SCDC are.

S : SCDC's main reason for not wanting the phones inside the prison system is because the phones got camera access, video access, and the phones can expose the things that they do. When they're using extreme force - the same way people are using cell phones out on the street when they're catching certain things that cops aren't supposed to be doing and stuff like that - see they can be exposed, they can't hide when we've got the phones.

The prisoners utilize the phones to communicate with their family members. The phone system that [SCDC has], the phone prices are entirely too high, nobody would use that. They get money off it, too, and everybody knows that. And prisoners use the phone as a means of staying connected to their families, fathers staying connected to their children. Some fathers back here are raising their children from prison by staying in contact with them. [2]

So SCDC just wants the phones out of the prisons because they don't want to be exposed. They don't want the videos of the fights and stabbings to be shown. There's other things prisoners are shooting videos of. They're showing videos of the brown water, they show videos of the mold inside the buildings. They show videos of the prisoners who've been dead in the bed for two hours and the guard ain't come and check on the man yet. So it's a fly on the wall for them, that's why they don't want them in here.

Jared : I've heard some reporting on how high the death numbers are from South Carolina over the past couple years, but I've also heard from some prisoners that they believe the death numbers are actually much higher than what's being reported. For example, I've had a prisoner tell me that, even though SCDC is officially stating death toll numbers in the teens over the last year, and these numbers are very high based on national averages, that the numbers are actually higher but they believe SCDC is only reporting certain kinds of deaths.

S : Yeah they are only reporting certain kinds of deaths, not including some deaths that they have caused themselves. And just to give you an example, they have a cell in the area they call the RHU (Restrictive Housing Unit) that's supposed to be the area they put people that get in trouble or whatever. And they've got a cell that's called a CI (Crisis Intervention) cell. That's where they strip you, make you get butt naked you got no clothes on, no nothing, and when they do bring you something, they'll bring you a suicide blanket only.

So you had a guy years ago, where he said he was going to kill himself, so they put him in the CI, so the guy told one of the Lieutenants later on that night he was cool. The Lieutenant gave the man a sheet and then they say the man hanged himself. That's what they said. But by policy and by rule, nobody is supposed to have [any] sheets in [any] CI cell and everybody know that, especially the Lieutenant, who's a supervisor. So that's their fault. He was a mentally ill patient. That's on them. So of course you know when they write it up, or they give the information to the public or his family, they [aren't telling those] people that.

D : Absolutely. I'd like to add to that as well. One of the reasons why the number is probably higher as well is they're dealing with medical neglect. So I'll give you an example. I saw a guy that fell out of his seat. And the guard looked over the guy, but the prisoner was the only one that responded and started to give the guy mouth to mouth resuscitation. Well, come to find out the guy who was giving him resuscitation, his face started turning blue. Five minutes later the nurse arrives, and they lean over and they tell the guy and tell the officer they'd been giving mouth-to-mouth the wrong way. I honestly sat there and saw them kill this man for that particular incident.

And we've also seen incidents where guys fall out, no medical treatment whatsoever. I consider those direct murders, as well, of the state. When staff are failing to respond or respond and say, "Oh, you're faking it, you're not having a heart attack," and you fall out and die right there. We saw that happen several times as well. So this also would account for why some of the prisoners would say that these numbers definitely would be higher, after they are witnessing some people being allowed to die, the way that they're being allowed to die.

If I can, I wanted to kind of backtrack on the question you asked earlier on cell phones.

Jared : Sure.

D : First things first, I always have to understand the basic fundamental nature of today's prison system throughout this nation is slavery. We understand that it's based on the 13th Amendment of the United States constitution, we can't get around that. There's a profit business, so it's all about profit, it's about the profit margin. That's what fuels the numbers in the prisons across this nation. It's no different in the state of South Carolina.

Technology, with prisoners having access to communication, the phone business has lost billions literally, in this state right here alone. Billions! They have put in certain rooms in here, they've put these machines in called kiosks, they are getting no play. This is where you're supposed to be able to send out literally something like text messages to your people. They thought this was going to be a booming industry, nobody is using it. This is a loss of revenue.

We have these same phone companies that are investing in the department of corrections, literally for free, giving them equipment to find cell phones. Giving them equipment to search our families at the front gate when they come in to visit us, giving them equipment to monitor the gate areas. So they're giving them this. This wasn't just a free handout, but this was because [they] need to make money, [they] need to get these phones out of the system. That has always been understood.

Even now, I'm hearing that, even with the jamming equipment that Bryan Stirling is requesting and supposed to have a hold of for Lee County right now, I think the company is called "Tech something," I'm not really sure exactly, but my understanding is that the parent company is GTL.

Jared : I heard that rumor as well.

D : So, I have to do my research on that, [but] this is definitely what I'm hearing. This is all about business, this is all about money. The minute they can wipe out, it's like using one stone to kill two birds at the same time. You kill that communication gap, that gap where they've been reporting on, because most of the time, when they come out with a lot of frivolous things, it's immediately refuted by us, by some pictures or some videos or something. Saying, "No, this is what happened." This is unusual. This is something that's very revolutionary, [a] very new generation in the prison system. They are not used to that; they had all communications with media locked down.

Keep in mind, SCDC has a policy where we are not allowed to converse with the media unless it's authorized by the South Carolina Department of Corrections. And I have a big beef with that.

Jared : Absolutely. So let's pivot a little bit because there's a lot of talk right now about violence. So there's a couple of questions I wanted to ask related to that. One is, what do you all see as the source of violence within prisons? And then the other one is about gangs and this idea - because I think that people don't really think about this very thoroughly - about why someone might join a gang in prison and why they might be even more likely to join one in prison versus when they're out on the outside?

E : I would have to say dealing with the gangs… Well, I'm going to start first with what the brother asked about what stimulates the violence. Me personally, I feel that the violence is stimulated by the overt oppressive nature of the beast and what they're doing. Like y'all already had mentioned, they're constantly taking [things] away and keeping us confined to a box. And you take three or four different tribes, who normally may get along, or see eye-to-eye on a business level or whatever the terms may be, but you put them in a box and you don't separate them or give them anything to be… So you may know that this area may be predominantly this culture, or that area may be predominantly that culture, but I'm going to take them all and mix them up, just so I can make it confusing. Because to me, it seems like they stir the violence up because that's the type of media they need to put their spin on things.

Then it goes back to the [cell phones], and we come and tell the truth on the fact and that's a problem for them, because they're going to say [the violence] is because of a cell phone, or it's because of this and that. They're not going to sit there and tell you it's because [they] keep oppressing us, and taking away from us, and not giving us any outlets to do and be about positive things. [3]

Nowadays, you got the tribes, or the "gangs" as some may say, coming up with positive ideas to do and bring together and unify, despite what the police or the officers are doing. They're steady trying to take away all our hope, but we still got brothers and organizations coming together, still trying to rectify unity on a level where we don't even have nothing to look forward to. So you can only imagine how discouraging it gets when it's like we're striving to do so much better and so much greater but we're still getting a foot on our neck. Me personally, that can ignite [drama] any time, any place, on the street, in the penitentiary, wherever.

So I have to say, it's incited by them, themselves. I feel like they feel like, if enough violence goes on, they can put their spin on it and they can basically - like my comrade said - bring lock-up to the yard. They keep us locked down for nothing. Every little thing, they blame it on [staff shortages]. They don't give us showers, they blame it on [staff shortages].

If an incident goes on, there's no officers there to protect anybody. That's another thing about the gangs. Nowadays, you don't know, these young brothers might need protection. They can't look at the officers and say these officers are going to protect me and keep me safe. It ain't no such thing as that. You gotta fend for yourself back here. So I look at that, that's another reason why people are joining these gangs like that. Not everyone, but you can only imagine, you've got kids coming back here 16, 17, have nobody. You're throwing them in here with [prisoners] in a maximum security prison with a 100 year [sentences]. You're going to have to have somebody or some type of way to get around. Or some people just lose hope and just fall by the wayside, and just do whatever they've got to do to get through, but you got some people that try. And to me, it's like sometimes the gangs [are] a better outlet for them, because then they don't have to worry about people taking advantage of them.

Because like I said, it's fend for yourself back here. It ain't like it used to be where you had enough officers and stuff. [Back then], something might pop off, it might go down, and it gets broken up and under control. Nah, now the officers are running the opposite way.

You might try to escape from being hurt, they'll lock you on the wings and cause your death. That's exactly why they're trying to take these phones, because we're the ones who are putting that out there and letting people know this is what they're doing. This man live could've been saved, but the officers didn't do their job.

S : People aren't born criminals. They are criminalized by the environments they are socialized within. United States Constitution's 13th Amendment is proof alone that the mass amount of the warehousing of prisoners is not by accident. And even prisoners convicted of violent crime or who may be involved in violent activities, they may one day return to society still. People's cases can be overturned, some of these guys got max-out dates, some may make parole. So wouldn't it be wise for them to be implementing programs that would better the prisoners, not make them worse? They should want to heal anything that they consider to be sick or whatever.

Society itself promotes and produces violence. People ain't getting like that in prison, they're already like that out there. [4] Television, movies, video games, comic books, novels, cartoons alone. They are indoctrinating this psychological behavior. They're doing that out there in society.

Like the brother said, some of these guys that are locked-up in here are juveniles. That's a learned behavior, they weren't born violent. And in regards to the survival thing, we create our own means of survival, because the state don't provide us with adequate supplies of anything. They give us one roll of tissue a week. One roll a week, that's it. It's 15-18 hours between meals in here sometimes. That's just reality.

Only prison industries workers get paid for working. Everybody else's work is free labor. But we're looking at these other prisoners going to work, knowing that they're getting a paycheck, they even file taxes. They can pay child support and provide for their families on it. All prisoners should get paid for all work, not just prison industries.

They're making millions of dollars off federal prisoners and state prisoners across the country through prison industries. That's facts.

D: Very true. Most prisoners, when they come to prison, come with the mindset that they want to get themselves together, and I think a lot of people miss that right there. Even the ones that are labeled violent--and when I hear people say "violent," we have to be careful with that term. Because a lot of times people are using this term "violent," and we're seeing politicians saying "well, we're not going to be supporting violent offenders." It's a new theme now, where we just promote policies [that benefit] non-violent offenders. And that kind of sickens me because, at the end of the day, who determines what's violent? Who determines what's a violent offender? To me, that's a bunch of people making up these laws, and they determine what's violent and what is not. And a lot of times people have non-violent offenses and these are straight up violent offenses in my eyes. You know, so I'm very careful with that term non-violent versus violent offenders.

The people that they want to categorize and label as violent offenders for the most part, these brothers and the women that come into prison, they come in with the mindset that they want to do the right thing. I think the minute they enter through those gates, and the minute they begin to observe their surroundings, they begin to recognize immediately, that any change they wanted to do, they don't need to do it, because they're going to be perceived a certain way and they're going to be handled a certain way, you know, and it's going to be a lose-lose situation for them. And people have to really understand that humans are entering through these gates and becoming prisoners, and in the process of that, the environment back here is making it worse. It is creating something in these prisoners that is a lot worse than when they came in for a lot of these guys and women.

Because, once again, they may have done some terrible things out there, but for the most part, when they start going through and they recognize the days ahead of them, they want to change, they want to do something different. Hell, I know I was about that when I came in here until I went through the reception and evaluation center, and saw it wasn't going to work out that way.

That is another reason why some people want to group up. Some people want family back here as well. I like to call them street formations [as opposed to using the term gang]. A lot of times, people need someone that can look out and care for their best interests, too. Not just in the protection role, but also somebody that gives a damn, because the system is so cold. So when you're sitting back here, and you're drinking, you're smoking, you're dabbing, you're talking about your loved ones with your homeboy there, that's a different feeling versus when you can get outside that cell and you're looking at the prison itself, and the environment itself, which is a cold place.

So everybody looks for some sense of comfort, some sense of love, which is another reason I think the prison system eliminating our contacts, our family ties, is really detrimental to prisoners re-entering society successfully, but that's another subject.

S: Let me do a quick rebuttal on what he said on the non-violent versus violent offenders, because I like what he said. Out there in society, when they're talking about what people are incarcerated for--like if somebody is convicted for murder--that's considered to be a violent offense. But that could've been a first time offense. And then he comes to prison, he's been in prison for fifteen years, and he ain't never had another violent offense on his record, he ain't never had a violent offense in prison, he's not involved in any violent activity [on the inside], so why is he still considered to be a violent person? Just because he's got a violent charge on his record, that don't mean that he's indulging in violent activities. Because sometimes, the people in prison that have non-violent charges, sometimes they're the ones involved in violent activities back here.

Jared: Lee Correctional Facility is named after the county, Lee County. And that county is named after Robert E. Lee. So you have a Confederate General and a former slave owner and you have a facility that is in his name, that really, as you all have mentioned, really carries on that same tradition into 2018. To what degree do you think this registers with prisoners? What does it mean to prisoners that make that connection?

D: And when did Lee open up, 1994?

Jared: Yeah in that era. [3] And just to give a little more context, the county was first named Lee County in the 1890's after Reconstruction had ended.

S: My only response to that is that the prisoners, who were probably from the Bishopville area who may have had that information through the educational system, or conscious prisoners who read and research things--those prisoners might be aware of that, but for the vast majority of prisoners, that don't have any significance to them because most of them are not aware of that.

D: I would have to second that. I don't think prisoners for the most part have any awareness of that. Matter of fact, to be honest with you, as much reading as I have done, as much cultural reading as I have done, I was very ignorant of that up until very recently, up until the last several weeks. I just learned this information.

As far as the effect, I can tell you for me, personally, it says something about progress and where we were at mentally. When this prison came about, I think between '92 and '94, for you to still name a prison after that during that time period... Although, don't get it wrong, we all know a prison is nothing more than a modern day plantation. So we understand that fact, so really it's quite fitting. But still, it would seem you wouldn't want to name one of your state institutions after this right here. It seems like someone would raise their hand and say, "No."

I think that also tells me, as a Black man, how conditioned a lot of Black people are around in these southern areas as well. Because I'm sure that they knew what the Lee County name stood for, what the name represented. The ones that voted in this particular institution in that area, the ones that were saying it would hold this name, they knew, and they didn't say anything.

This is the type of mindset we're dealing with in the state of South Carolina today, which is why I'm constantly reminding people we have the highest rate as it relates to racial disparities in the nation. We are in the top six or seven states as far as racial disparities as it relates to sentencing and imprisonment rates in the nation. I think we're only like 20-30 percent of the population in South Carolina [4] and over 60-something percent of the prison population. [5]

They did a recent study not too long ago that told us that Black people specifically were being automatically over-sentenced by judges. It said if you were Black, you were 50 times more likely to get jail time for a minor offense versus if you were any other race. If you were compared to white defendants, you were over 70 percent more likely to be sentenced to longer sentences, based on your race. [6] Everybody knows the color of the state of South Carolina when you walk into the prison system. [5] I think all of this is an indicator of the nature of the beast that we are dealing with.

And I have to note that, even when South Carolina was going through their Reconstruction phase, all of these same Blacks that were a part of the Reconstruction phase were eventually thrown out of power, and that's because there was a compromise between the North and the South. And we have to always remember that right there. That's when we get back to 1865, that's when we get back to the 13th Amendment, that constitutional amendment and the compromise that was reached across the table. The power dynamics in the South has never changed. And I think we're seeing the rottenness of it in today's times. That's why I think we're seeing these extreme responses, these extreme reactions in the prison systems throughout these southern states.

S: Every time prisoners do strive to organize, to come together to make things better for themselves, the administration really doesn't give you much support or they attack you. For example, one of my comrades, he recently had been released from prison over the last year or so. He was housed at Lee County at one point and he was a coordinator on the compound.

He was able to organize over 150 members every week to come together positively, sit down and have discussions, and things of that nature. Whenever there would be any type of altercations or whatever, they would try to talk over things first and most often if they couldn't, then they would handle it like men and knuckle it up. But there wasn't so much knives, and people getting killed or stabbed up. All of that was calmed down for a while. So you had the STG (Security Threat Group) supervisor from headquarters and he got with the warden at that time, and they called him to a conference and they wanted him to explain to them how is it that you could have Crips, Bloods, Muslims, etc., in the same room every week and there's never any violence going on? The [STG] told [the warden] that [the prisoners] were up to something, that's how they felt. And what did they do to [the prisoner coordinating the program]? They shipped him to another institution.

When they moved him to another institution, they started to do things on the Lee County yard from a program perspective. To make a long story short, [the coordinator] was eventually sent home. While he went home, now you had other things popping off at other yards, who didn't have these types of positive things going on. They moved these guys around, piled all these guys up on one yard, all on one side, waited for one thing to happen. Boom! You get the worst thing that happened in the last 25 years. That was strategically implemented.

D: Yeah. Absolutely. And I think that's very important to note that, back to Lee County very briefly, that all of this right here is not by accident. None of it is by accident. That's the sad part about it. [6]

S: Yeah, they were used as lab rats. One more thing with regards to laws and stuff like that: a lot of times in South Carolina, people get convicted unjustly. And whenever somebody discovers that--and it's something that affects a lot of prisoners--and they put it into the courthouse and they pass a law or something on it, and they know they've done a lot of wrong to a lot of people, but what they'll do is they'll slide a word in it so that [it doesn't take effect] retroactively. Because if they had to [implement it] retroactively, they'd have to let a lot of people go, because they convicted a lot of people unjustly. They've been doing that for the longest.

Jared: So I want to give you all an opportunity to talk about change. What changes would you like to see in the prison system? What changes do you think could improve the situation? And then the second part of that is, what would you like to see people on the outside do to support? But let's start with the first part.

D: So what changes would we like to see in the prison system?

Jared: Yeah. I know some of you are abolitionists, but what can be done for immediate needs in terms of reforms.

D: Yeah, I'm always thinking about it as a dismantling process. I've been trying to push that for a while. We call it a dismantling process. And that gives the opportunity for other people to get in with their reform ideas, because I don't think we can go from one angle all the way to the other angle, like from zero to a hundred, it's just not going to happen like that. It is not going to play out like that.

Nonetheless, some of the things that I feel can actually improve. Improvement. First and foremost, sentencing. Sentencing reform in the state of South Carolina. It's not just sentencing reform in the state of South Carolina, it's actually sentencing reform across the nation. They need to get rid of that Truth-In-Sentencing deal, period.

We need an end of dehumanizing conditions, and that means food improvement. We need open yards again, not just enclosed rec yards, we need these open rec yards again, where prisoners can move. We need prisoners to start being treated like humans. We need more rights to our visits. We need education programs, I'm a big one on education programs, in particular Pell Grants, there's some other names, they need to be brought back to the prison systems again.

Not only that, but what the state of South Carolina did as the prison population fell they--instead of closing down the maximum security prisons, they closed down their work releases. We need work releases re-opened back up and expanded. Then we need one last thing: we need pay. We need prisoners to be able to be paid for their labor. If you're doing general labor, you need to be able to be paid for that labor, just the way it comes in at ending prison slavery. We need to end prison slavery, which I think is a trigger toward abolitionist work. But nonetheless, we need to end prison slavery to bring back a lot of these prisoners getting paid their wages. So I think those are immediate things that can be improved on. Was there another question beyond that?

Jared: The second question was, what can people on the outside do that actually care about the situation, care about the conditions of prisoners, care about what's going on in South Carolina?

D: On the outside right now, one of the biggest things we're moving into in particular in Jailhouse Lawyers Speak, we need to move into becoming more involved in the electoral process, in particular local politics. We need to become more involved in that. We're hoping that our loved ones outside that support us, we need to organize more ground support as it relates to prisons. We need to see more protests, we need to see more meetings with these directors, we need to see more organizing at state capitols. We need to see more support of what has already been initiated on the ground in the state of South Carolina.

We need to figure out how to get our local county jails and get people who are detained there registered to vote, and get the voting machines into these county jails, and get these prisoners the ability that they can have the vote. The problem with state of South Carolina is it's a good-old-boy system, and we need to change the face of it. And the only way we're going to be able to change it is we have to get more involved in the electoral process, but not just voting for a Democrat or Republican or Independent or whatever, but voting for people that have prisoner's best interests. [7] Every group of people have interests and we have to find people that have our interests at heart.

E: I really agree with what D said, that's all I was really going to say, really, about sentencing reform, more programs, even the better nutrition, and rec, let us get some physical exercise and more education.

S: I think we also need an outside grievance system. Because the grievance system is definitely not fair or impartial back here. The same people that work for the prison are the same people who are deciding if we should get results or not from our grievances. Everything else I think the brother already covered. But I also want to say for society, to them let he who has not sinned cast the first stone. Prisoners, some of us in here, have made mistakes and some of us did the things we did, but we made mistakes. But we have paid for our mistakes. Show some humanity. That's what we want society to do is show some humanity.

D: One last note that I wanted to add, the ground is vibrating right now for a national strike August 21st throughout the nation. We have a number of states that are already vowing to participate in this national strike, particularly in support of the state of South Carolina and the recent issues that just happened. They say South Carolina is an example of what's actually occurring throughout the nation. It just so happened that these particular people died here [at Lee Correctional] so they want to get in the back of this right here and they want to highlight it by mobilizing throughout the inside.

So we can ask those folks to support it on the outside, we need to support it on the outside to really support these actions. Let the people know that wherever prisoners may decide to have a strike or a sit in that the public is mindful and they are watching for any type of retaliatory actions that may take place throughout the process of this resistance that may be taking place across this nation, on August 21st.

Jared: Great, absolutely, is there anything else anyone wants to add about Lee or any of the other points where we might have missed something?

E: I would just like to add that in the aftermath of the incident that happened over at Lee, and all over the state, we're being massively punished. No showers, power is being cut off all this time, we've been locked down for a week, almost going on two weeks, and we've only had one shower and that was like, they cut the hot water off. What type of inhumane thing is that?

Jared: Are there other conditions you want people to know about since the incident at Lee that haven't been addressed?

S: One of the things is they have the metal plates on the window where you can't see outside, you can't see the sunlight, you can't see the grass or the daylight. They got it sealed out where you can't get no oxygen through it, the ventilation is all messed up, these are things that they just recently did. They're putting flaps on the doors so you can just slide the meal through it. They are animalizing the prisoners.

Jared Ware is a freelance writer and advocate for the rights of incarcerated peoples. He is also the producer of the prison abolitionist podcast Beyond Prisons, and co-host and co-producer of the anti-capitalist podcast Millennials Are Killing Capitalism.

Notes

[1] Truth In Sentencing Laws were part of a national movement in the mid-nineties to end parole and increase the length of prison sentences, as well as ensuring that offenders for certain offenses served at least 85% of their sentences. Although it was a national movement, here are some details about South Carolina's laws: http://www.ncrp.info/StateFactSheets.aspx?state=SC

[2] According to Jailhouse Lawyers Speak, "state pay" was a system where the state paid every prisoner, for example, $5.45 an hour for up to 18 hours every two weeks. It was enough to buy real hygiene products, a few snacks, and smokes. Prison officials took it away during the national changes that were rolled out in the mid-nineties.

[3] It opened up in 1993 according to SCDC http://www.doc.sc.gov/institutions/lee.html

[4] 27.5% according to the most recent US Census https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/SC/PST045216

[5] Black people represent 62% of the prison population in South Carolina, despite representing roughly 28% of the state population.

[6] This may not be the study D is referencing, but here is a study that talks about disparities in sentencing in South Carolina and other states: http://www.sentencingproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/The-Color-of-Justice-Racial-and-Ethnic-Disparity-in-State-Prisons.pdf

America's Gun Fetish is a Symptom of a Deeper Sickness

By Ben Luongo

The tragic shooting that took place at the Marjory Stoneman Douglas high school in February breathed new life into America's gun debate. Surviving students confronted political leaders about gun violence during a CNN town-hall meeting, President Trump invited victims to the White House for a "listening session," and March for Our Lives events spread across the country demanding a change in U.S. gun laws.

Unfortunately, none of this has led to any real policy changes, and we continues to debate our gun laws after yet another shooting at Santa Fe High School took the lives of 10 students and inured 13 others. There have already been 22 school shootings in 2018 , and the number of students and teachers killed by guns at school has exceeded the number of active-duty military deaths this year.

Other governments around the world have successfully lowered their gun violence by taking proactive steps to restrict access to firearms. However, America's conservative legislators in power continue to peddle the same tired arguments against changing America's gun laws. The most common attempt for gun advocates to frame the debate in their favor is to focus on mental health instead of gun control. For instance, the only specific solution Texas governor Gregg Abbott offered in response to the Santa Fe High School shooting was to improve mental health resources. Representative Randy Weber, who represents the Texas district the shooting took place in, also emphasized to reporters the importance of mental health despite the fact that he was asked a question about gun control. President Trump's televised response to the shooting on Friday mentioned nothing about gun control, but his speech two weeks earlier to the NRA conference focused primarily on mental health .

Conservative legislators argued the same points after the Parkland shooting. Speaker of the House Paul Ryan responded to the high school shooting saying "As you know mental health is often a big problem underlying these tragedies […] We want to make sure that if someone is in the mental health system that they do not get a gun if they should not have a gun." President Trump's first responded with a tweet stating that: "So many signs that the Florida shooter was mentally disturbed, even expelled from school for bad and erratic behavior. Neighbors and classmates knew he was a big problem. Must always report such instances to authorities, again and again!" Speaking at the Conservative Political Action Committee, then-CEO of the National Rifle Association Wayne LaPierre blamed America's mental health system as one of the major problems behind gun violence.

To be absolutely honest, the attempt to frame the debate as a mental health problem is a conservative tactic meant to deflect attention from sincere conversations about gun regulations. The relationship between gun violence and mental health is, nonetheless, a concern on the minds of the majority of Americans. According to a recent ABC News/Washington Post poll , 77% of the respondents say that the Parkland shooting could have been prevented with more effective healthcare screening, where only 58% of those respondent agreed that gun control could have prevented the shooting.

America's concern with mental health and violence is understandable, but it is the wrong way to think about America's unique gun problem. The simple fact is that mental health is not a predictor of gun violence or mass shootings. Mental illness only explains 14.8% of mass-shooting (as defined by a shooter killing four or more people). Mental illness becomes even less important when considering that it constitutes only one percent of all gun related homicides . In fact, only three to five percent of violent crimes are tied to serious mental health issues. The narrative that shooters suffer from a mental illness only stigmatizes those who do suffer from legitimate mental or emotional health issues who are more likely to be the victims of such crimes rather than the offender.

If we want to be honest about what all of the shooters have in common then we need to have serious conversations about gender and America's culture of toxic masculinity. The grand majority of shooters are men , most of them white. Out of the 94 mass shootings in America since 1984, 92 of them were committed by men (that's 98% of mass shootings). Men actually dominate the statistics on violent crime in whole. In fact, 90% of murders are committed by men . In general, gender is more effective predictor of gun violence than mental health is.

In no way does this suggest that men are inherently more violent than women. It may be tempting to interpret these numbers as indicative of real biological differences. However, modern psychology shows how men and women are much more alike than they are different and any real behavioral differences between the two have more to do with society than biology. If you want to understand why violence and antisocial behavior occurs along gender lines, then you have to consider the cultural messages that construct male and female gender roles. Specifically, America's gun epidemic reflects the social standards of masculinity that men are expected to meet.

In reality, America is still very much a patriarchal society. Men exercise more power than women in economics, politics, and culture. Economically, men are likely to be paid more than women for doing the same work. Men also make more money strait out of college despite the fact that women outperform men in college and graduate school . Politically, men control just over 80% of Congressional seats despite constituting only 50% of the population. As a result, women's health and rights issues are never fully represented appropriately in legislation. Culturally speaking, men dominate writing and directing positions in movies and TV. Woman only constitute 10% of the writers and directors of 2017's top 100 grossing movies. As a result, women's issues barely get highlighted in our public discussions. Just consider how long it took the #MeToo campaign to highlight systemic sexual abuse in Hollywood.

Indeed, our society sends messages to both men and women as to what we value and who should exercise power. Male politicians draft legislation that fails to address women's issues while making it easier to legally obtain a gun. Male writers and directors create the movies that place women in subordinate roles while celebrating the heroic use of male violence to save the day. Male employers manage the workplace where women still suffer from vocational discrimination and sexual harassment while men are more likely to enjoy economic success.

By all standards, this is a patriarchal society, and woman have to cope with the masculine structures working against them. As a result, women are more likely to suffer from mental and emotional distress , such as depression, anxiety disorders, PTSD, and low self-esteem. In fact, Women are twice as likely to suffer from depression . Despite the fact that women are more likely than men to suffer from these condition, it doesn't lead women to gun violence. Again, women constitute less than two percent of mass shootings. If mental health was a predictor of gun violence, then women would make up a larger percentage of violent gun offenders.

Instead, women are more likely to be the victims of gun violence committed by men. More than half of the mass shootings are situations of domestic violence and at least four out of five gun owners are men . The presence of a gun in a violent domestic relationship increases the woman's chance of being shot fivefold . In fact, 4.5 million women report that an intimate partner had threatened them with a gun at some point in their life. Regarding domestic violence in general, woman are the victims of domestic violence in 85% of the cases.

The gross amount of violence that men direct towards women, whether its gun violence, domestic abuse, sexual assault and rape, all reveals how men have internalized cultural messages of male superiority. The term used for this is 'toxic masculinity' which refers to the endorsement of stereotypical roles of male dominance, misogyny, and aggression. Research demonstrates the role that these cultural expectations play in male violence and coercion, especially when one's masculine identity comes under threat.

This is an important point to make because it illustrates how the patriarchy isn't just bad for women, it's bad for men too. Men are barraged daily with messages from the media, the military, professional sports, and the business sector that tell them how to be masculine. Such messages frame masculinity in terms of economics success, social power, physical strength, etc. This reveals the common theme behind the shooters. Most of the mass shooters have experienced what they see as threats to their masculinity - either they struggled as children to fit in or they had trouble meeting the social expectations of adulthood. Failing to meet these expectations, American shooters respond in ways meant to reaffirm their masculinity. Before they were known for their mass shooting, the grand majority of these shooters have all exhibited aggression towards women.

Omar Matteen, the shooter of the Pulse night club who killed 50 and injured 53, has a history of beating his wife .

Robert Lewis Dear, who killed three and injured nine at the Colorado Spring Planned Parenthood shooting, has a history of violence towards woman , including cases of domestic abuse against his two x-wives and a rape case in 1992.

Elliot Rodger, who killed six people at the Isle Vista Killings, uploaded a disturbing video where he said, "I don't know why you girls aren't attracted to me but I will punish you all for it …You will finally see that I am, in truth, the superior one, the true alpha male"

Adam Lanza, the Sandy Hook Shooter, wrote a document where he disparaged women for being inherently selfish .

Dyllan Roof, the Charleston Church shooter, told his black victims that "you rape our women and you're taking over our country." Many sociologists have used the term benevolent sexism to explain his attitudes towards women

Seung-Hui Cho, the shooter behind the Virginia Tech shooting, had police called on him for stalking and harassing women .

Stephen Paddock, responsible for the concert shooting in Las Vegas, was known for regularly and public abusing his girlfriend , and paid prostitutes thousands of dollars for them to satisfy his rape fantasies .

Nikolas Cruz, the shooter behind the Parkland high school shooting, was abusive towards his girlfriend and got into a fight with her new boyfriend. He was also accused of stalking a female student . A friend said that he had to cease being friends with him after he would threaten his female friends.

The most recent shooter, Dimitrios Pagourtzis, also had a history of sexually aggressive behavior. Reports are now emerging of him harassing female students that he was interested in . Shana Fisher had to publicly tell him in class that she would not go out with him - he later killed her in the shooting. Other reports are coming out of him being picked on and emasculated by both his football teammates and coaches.

Of course America's gun problem is complex and can't be reduced to a single problem. Indeed the sheer amount of guns, as well the ease of obtaining them, is just as much of a problem as anything else. In fact, the scientific research is clear that more guns leads to more gun deaths (some of the peer-reviewed research can be seen here , here , here , and here ).

However, we must also ask where America's gun fetish comes from in the first place. The only way to makes sense of this is to understand how guns fulfill the desire to satisfy social expectations of masculinity. Shedding light on these gendered ways of thinking reveals why politicians and the media are willing to emasculate the shooters by calling them cowards or crazy and, thus, able to shift the debate to mental health. The bottom line is that we need to stop blaming mental health - the real sickness is our culture of toxic masculinity.

Ben Luongo is a doctoral candidate at University of South Florida's School of Interdisciplinary Global Studies where he teaches courses in international human rights and global political economy. Previously, he worked as a campaign organizer and directed several campaigns for groups like the Human Rights Campaign and Save the Children. His articles have appeared in the Foreign Policy Journal, Foreign Policy in Focus, International Policy Digest, New Politics, and the Hampton Institute.

No One Deserves Abuse: A Personal Account of Intimate Partner Violence

By Camille Euritt

"Don't say it's a roller coaster when life's really a fun house or life's ups and downs are really just rounds and rounds."

-Me

He left me with the impression that I was inadequate. That is not something that I indigenously believe, but what my lover (he was more like a hater) imparted. It was complicated. The struggle to recover my self-belief became exacerbated by the fact that I preferred to silently absorb his cruel remarks than risk ending the relationship. Having a "cool" partner, at first, boosted my self-esteem. Yet that effect changed when he started to belittle me with personal attacks. I had no recourse. I had never been treated like this before so I unknowingly tolerated actions that were abusive without calling him out. My voice was muted like a blown-out candle and my soul was crushed.

I met Rey at the improv cafe where he worked. He was involved peripherally in the community. By serving the improvisers food and drinks he got to know and deeply resent them. Who knows what his damage was or the emotional baggage that resulted in such unresolved anger? When we would talk about the improv scene, he became aggressive, describing his desire to "hate-fuck" my teacher, a strong, vocal woman I admired. He said this on more than one occasion which increased the tension within our relationship.

We used to go out to eat. As we were waiting for our food, I would dance in a flamboyant way. Rey had a visceral reaction of fear. He was embarrassed and looked around the room in frantic despair even though it was a nearly empty restaurant. It was obvious that he was uncomfortable, but I wanted to enjoy myself and be free. He expected me to stop due to his insecurity, but I didn't. His discomfort only showed me my point of leverage: I should be uncontrollable. He punished me later in the parking lot by restraining me against the car aggressively.

In privacy, he would threaten me with a fist. This gesture evolved into more escalated attempts to control my body similar to the manner in which he pushed me in the parking lot previously. When I challenged him on his right to use force he always excused himself by saying that being tough is just "how he is," and talked about his childhood experiences that necessitated dominating others.

He said that I was emotionally unstable, a statement that had a gas-lighting effect on me. Besides this manipulation, he made strange comments, that in another context would have led me to question his relationship with reality, but I had no ability to think that introspectively at the time. I never really understood him when he said I was a "witch," but the overall creepy tone of his comments left me feeling uncertain about what was happening. This threatened my ability to think for myself. The result was that he predicted my behavior and emotions and I would perform them accordingly against my own wishes.

One day, my erratic restaurant dancing ceased to be Rey's trigger. With the extinction of my point of leverage, I lost my power to subdue him by embarrassing him and he took control. I remember thinking that I felt like I was in hell. I could no longer endure the way he controlled and vilified me in such a dehumanizing manner. I became overwhelmed by my suffering. So, I escaped as soon as I could (literally jumping from his car at a traffic light) and vowed never to go back to "hell" again. Once I ghosted him, he never sought me. I assume that his life continued to revolve around beating people up, but with just a little more isolation until he could entrap his next victim.

Achieving greater well-being after this crisis period took work, because I had to overcome my fear of new people and learn to trust again. Building relationships would require more self-disclosure than I was used to as a shy person. Plus, I needed to unlearn my image of love and better imagine what a relationship could be. My therapist helped me locate organizations in the community that serve people with mental illness and would restore my confidence.

Everyone deserves a peaceful existence, free of violence. Any person that has been abused can attest to the traumatizing nature of treatment that degrades you. I used to think that something was wrong with me, just like my abuser used to say over and over. Unfortunately, my encounter with Rey led to hospitalization and a diagnosis which further marginalized me. That is because many people believe that those with mental illness are "crazy" in a malevolent sense, but people are more complex than any mere label used to stigmatize them. It is fairer to say that every person is a product of his or her environment. We cannot control what happens to us and that means we should not punish people for the ways that they have learned to adapt to their environment. What may look "crazy" on the outside may greatly meet that person's needs.

The social work concept of person-in-environment has helped me to realize that the culprit of my abuser's chauvinism was partly societal. Since people don't live in a vacuum, it is probable that my abuser learned his behavior by reinforcement and that many actors had a chance to influence him along the way. Evidence shows that the experience I have had is a pattern repeated in many women's experiences. Intimate partner violence is systemic, and people treat each other disrespectfully in relationships all the time. According to the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey from 2010, one out of four women have experienced severe physical violence by an intimate partner. An issue of this magnitude deserves urgent intervention. When males systematically learn to use coercive tactics in relationships, it reflects the ideology that women are not equal or worthy of respect. My abuser always justified his violence with the excuse that that was how he had been raised. As a society, we must reject this excuse and all excuses to abuse by teaching young people about equality, respect, and healthy relationships.

Social norms play a huge role in the perpetuation of the problem but changing social norms can also be the solution. If a bystander would have stood-up for me, that would have made a difference. If someone would have negatively reinforced Rey's coercive relationship tactics growing-up, that would have worked. If I knew what abuse looked like that would have made a difference as well. There is a lot that could be done, but it just takes one person to interrupt the cycle of abuse and give the victim back her power. That person is the "bystander." We all have the opportunity to help someone when we sense an unequal and uncomfortable dynamic between partners. It makes a huge difference to the victim when someone tells him or her they deserve different treatment by defending them against their abuser. Intervention can include causing a distraction that stops the behavior in the moment, calling the authorities, or directly confronting wrongful treatment by challenging abusers. Will you speak-up for the vulnerable, erratic dancer at the pizza parlor or let her boyfriend hit her in the parking lot?

Camille is a prospective MSW candidate at the University of Southern California particularly concerned with the issue of violence against women.

Structural Oppression, White-Male Terror, and a Few Words on Violence

By Mimi Soltysik and Colin Jenkins

We recently saw a meme on social media that stated the following:

"There can be no 'unprovoked' violence against a Nazi. The sole aim and focus of their philosophical existence is violence. If you take up that identity, you've already declared violent intent. Anything done in response is just varying levels on self-defense."

We think it's reasonable to take this a step further and include anyone who advocates for inherently racist/oppressive systems/structures. That support for inherently racist/oppressive systems/structures means people will suffer. Many have and will die as a result of that support. There can be little appeal for justice in a system that's flawed by design, that's inherently oppressive by design.

Violence is endemic in the United States because it is structural. We are all born into this violently oppressive society that is shaped by multiple, interconnecting systems: capitalism, patriarchy, white supremacy, imperialism, xenophobia, gender-normativity, and ableism. Some of these systems are intentional, and some are residual. For instance, capitalism creates and maintains strict class divisions in a very deliberate way, which in turn creates corollary systems of control (dictatorship of capital, militarized police, ICE) and residual systems of cultural oppression (misogyny, racism, homophobia, ableism). All of these systems interact to produce societal norms which are inherently oppressive and violent.

Structural violence is insidious because it is hidden beneath the surface, embedded in the systems that dictate our everyday lives. The violence is inherent in the forceful obstruction or dispossession of human dignity, autonomy, and self-determination. The systemic obstruction of basic needs (capitalism), such as food, clothing, shelter, healthcare, and education, is violent. The systematic targeting of Black and Brown lives (white supremacy), which manifests itself in daily extrajudicial killings of people of color by police and violent interventions and extractions carried out by ICE, is extremely violent. The dehumanization of transgendered folks (gender-normativity) is violent. The vitriol and hatred directed against women (patriarchy and misogyny) is violent. The underlying assumption that our value as human beings is based in what kind of productivity we can offer to the capitalist system (ableism) is violent. The proliferation of global wars and destruction (imperialism) is obviously violent. As an all-encompassing and all-consuming society of violence, the United States and its structures are designed to maintain hegemony and control.

In a 2017 piece, Devyn Springer and Joel Northam break down this layered process:

"As we unmask the US's hegemonic power, we find that it is maintained not only through sheer violent exploitation, but through perpetuating powerfully constructed western-centric epistemology as well. Within this epistemology, or societal perception of truth, validity, and opinion, the concept of 'violence' is constructed at a young age to be something always done unto the US and never perpetuated by the US. The US would not paint itself as an aggressor in any instance, presenting subjects like slavery, colonialism, and foreign regime changes through a lens of benevolence rather than the actual violence they represent. The ways the US crafts the narratives surrounding its history of enslaving Africans, for example, shows terms like 'worker' and 'laborer' often put in place of 'slave' or even 'enslaved African' in state-funded textbooks.

Another example of this crafting of narratives is the legacy of the Black Panther Party, which has been popularly referred to as an 'anti-white terrorist group' (shout out to Tomi Lahren) and compared to the KKK, even though all facts show this is far from where their actual legacy should be. This is an act of crafting a specific epistemology, one that projects a sense of benevolence and lack of responsibility onto the US legacy."

This breakdown is important because it not only exposes the complex process of legitimizing systemic violence, but also illustrates how struggles against this inherently oppressive system (like in the case of the original Black Panther Party) are so easily (and incorrectly) demonized. Under this sophisticated trickery, oppression and dominance from above is painted as the righteous state of things, while resistance from below is labeled "terroristic" or "immoral" or "illegal."

Both conservatives and liberals, Republicans and Democrats, work in tandem to legitimize this control from above.

An interesting element that springs from this structural violence comes from within the population at-large, both organically and through indirect support from these systems. The residual systems of cultural oppression, while shaped from the top, are essentially maintained through the formation of fascistic tendencies. These tendencies develop from the bottom as means to empower those who are structurally powerless.

In the United States, this development is most noticeable among white men. While white-male terroristic hate has been a staple of American society since its beginning, it has become especially apparent as both a reaction to the political ascendency of Barack Obama and a component of the political rise of Donald Trump.

It's 2018. The socio-political landscape is evolving. This month, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) referenced a recent report by South Asian Americans Leading Together detailing a rise in hate-inspired violence tied to the 2016 elections. The SPLC recently reported that the number of hate groups in the US has grown by 20 percent since 2014, and "more than 950 hate groups operated in the country last year, with the majority focused on white supremacy." Basic observations confirm this, with torch-bearing neo-Nazis making their presence known, so-called "alt-right" groups forming throughout the country, white-supremacist groups coming out of the woodwork, and numerous instances of white-male terrorism, including public shootings and knife attacks specifically targeting Black citizens, a recent string of mail bombs in Austin, Texas, and yet another mass shooting in a long line of mass shootings, this time at a Waffle House restaurant in Nashville, Tennessee.

Responding to both the structural violence stemming from systems and the internal violence stemming from fascism and white-male terrorism is crucial. While they both operate on separate fronts, they indirectly support one another in many ways. The overlap between police agencies and white supremacists is indicative of this on a cultural level, and the hesitation of our legal systems and media to address white-male terrorism is indicative on a systemic level.

Social justice work is multi-pronged and must be carried out by the Left. Fighting violent and oppressive systems through defensive-violence is not only a basic human right, it is often imperative for survival. Those who are backed into a corner cannot merely sit down and hope for the best, especially when those who have backed them into the corner have exhibited such vile levels of hate and disregard for human life. Instead, survival dictates that we start swinging. Or, at the very least, develop the means and propensity to respond with equal or greater force. We don't see what we are suggesting as advocacy for violence. We see this as a rational response to grand-scale violence. A response that may be necessary to preserve life while working to establish peace and justice.

This commentary originally appeared at The Socialist .

Colin Jenkins is founder and Social Economics Department chair at the Hampton Institute, a working-class think tank. He is also a member of the Socialist Party USA, Industrial Workers of the World, and General Defense Committee.

Mimi Soltysik is a member of the Socialist Party Los Angeles Local, the Stop LAPD Spying Coalition, the Coalition for Peace, Revolution, and Social Justice, and is the educator at the Maggie Phair Institute. He was the Socialist Party USA's 2016 presidential nominee and ran for California State Assembly in 2014.

The Right Comes for the Parkland Shooting Survivors

By Sean Posey

Only hours after one of the ten deadliest mass shootings in modern American history, an outpouring of national grief was accompanied by a concerted attack on the credibility - and even the existence - of the victims at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. The assault on a group of underage student survivors encapsulates all the worst traits of the alt-right, in a campaign of hate and disinformation that stretches from the putrid bowels of 8chan to the halls of the nation's capital.

In the days after Nikolas Cruz murdered seventeen students in Parkland, the Washington Post reviewed thousands of posts on 8chan and 4chan (popular message boards for the alt-right and right-wing conspiracy theorists), as well as Reddit. They found an orchestrated disinformation campaign, sometimes referred to as "4chan attacks," aimed at destroying the creditability of news reports about the incident.

That campaign soon spread to attacking the survivors themselves, the Post shows.[1] "They began crafting false explanations about the massacre, the Post explained, "including that actors were posing as students, in hopes of blunting what they correctly guessed would be a revived interest in gun control."[2]

Within a very short period of time, wild alt-right conspiracy theories spread throughout social media and into so-called news outlets. Gateway Pundit, a bizarre, conspiracy-oriented website that actually gained White House press credentials in 2017, tweeted a fake BuzzFeed news story in the wake of the shooting. Reporter Lucian Wintrich, who holds White House press credentials, retweeted an article entitled, "Why We Need To Take Away White People's Guns Now, More Than Ever," which itself emanated from 4chan and was picked up by the Twitter account MagaPill. The account is known for spreading untruths, from the infamous "Pizzagate" story of 2016 to accounts of various so-called "false flag" attacks.[3] Sean Hannity and the Drudge Report, among others, have linked to or referenced articles in Gateway Pundit.

YouTube has played an important role in disseminating false information about the shooting, particularly the idea that students were actually "crisis actors," paid to act out a staged event. Jonathan Albright, research director at the Tow Center for Digital Journalism at Columbia, looked at 256 videos on YouTube on the subject of "crisis actors." He then followed the videos suggested to him by YouTube's recommendation engine. This ultimately revealed a network of nearly 9,000 conspiracy related videos. A video that suggested that the Parkland students are crisis actors (paid by George Soros and CNN) actually became the top trending video on YouTube before it was removed. [4]

According to Albright's study, "the view count for 50 of the top mass shooting-related conspiracy videos is around 50 million. Not every single video overlaps directly with conspiracy-related subjects, but it's worth pointing out that these 8842 videos have registered almostfour billion (3,956,454,363) views." [5]

The idea of suggesting that recent mass shootings are either hoaxes or "false flag" attacks, that is attacks orchestrated by the "Deep State" or other forces, dates back at least to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in 2012. Perhaps the most well known purveyor of these types of conspiracy theorists is Alex Jones, who runs a daily radio show on Infowars.com. "The Alex Jones Show" reaches millions, and Jones, a close friend of Trump ally Roger Stone, actually hosted Trump on his show in December 2015. After the election, Trump called Jones to thank him for his support.

Jones called the Sandy Hook shooting a "hoax" and has refused to apologize for his assertions.[6] "I've watched the footage, and it looks like a drill," Jones said. [7] He has taken a similar approach to the Parkland shooting. After initial reports that gunman Nikolas Cruz was linked to a white nationalist group were corrected, Jones claimed the mistake was part of a liberal conspiracy against gun owners. "We said the perfect false flag would be a white nationalist attacking a multicultural school as a way to make the leftists all look like victims and bring in gun control and a war on America's recovery, and now, right on time, what we've been warning of, their main card, the thing we said was imminent, appears with all the evidence." [8]

Since then, Jones has run a segment showing footage of Parkland survivor David Hogg speaking with an Adolph Hitler speech dubbed over his voice. Instead of showing footage of the actual crowd at the 'March For Our Lives Rally,' the video instead cuts to historic footage of Germans saluting Hitler with outstretched arms. Parkland survivor Emma Gonzalez, a bisexual woman of color, is also shown spliced together with footage from Nazi rallies. Incredibly enough, Jones goes on to say that he is not actually calling the students Nazis. [9] This is the level of rhetoric going out across the nation from a show that garners an estimated two million listeners a week. One of Jones's followers has even started a website solely aimed at besmirching Hogg's character. [10]

Conspiracy theorist Dinesh D'Souza also quickly got in on the act. "Worst news since their parents told them to get summer jobs," he tweeted after a bill calling for a ban on military-style weapons failed in the Florida Legislature in the aftermath of the Parkland shooting. Even the blog RedState, edited by Caleb Howe - who has positioned himself as an anti-Trump moderate - published an article that questioned whether David Hogg was actually on campus during the time of the attack. (Journalist Sarah Rumpf later walked her claim back.) Former Congressman Jack Kingston, who now appears regularly as a pro-Trump talking head on CNN, questioned whether students could really organize a march on Washington - instead suggesting that George Soros, Antifa and the Democratic National Committee were behind the rally.

Nor have these kinds of attacks been limited to right-wing media. Benjamin Kelly, an aide to Representative Shawn Harrison (R-Tampa), claimed that surviving Parkland students pictured in the media were not actually students "but actors that travel to various crisis [sic] when they happen." Leslie Gibson, a Republican candidate for the Maine House of Representatives, referred to Emma Gonzalez as a "skinhead lesbian" before a popular backlash led to his quitting the race.

An even more appalling attack came from Representative Steve King (R-Iowa), a darling of the alt-right. A post from King's official Facebook page attacked Gonzalez's heritage and attempted to tie her to Communist Cuba. Conflating Gonzalez's jacket patch of the Cuban flag with support for communism quickly led many to question King's basic knowledge of history, not to mention his decency. Rebecca Bodenheimer explains that the Cuban flag "has been deployed by both sides of the political spectrum and whose meaning has been perhaps more contested than at any other time in Cuba's history."[11]

It should not come as a surprise that King is involved in the assault on the Parkland students. After he quoted Dutch far right-politician Geert Wilders on Twitter in 2017, Andrew Anglin, editor of the Neo-Nazi Daily Stormer, called King a "hero" who "is basically an open white nationalist at this point." [12] "We can't restore our civilization with somebody else's babies," is the King quote Anglin was referring to. Perhaps that is why King is attacking Gonzalez, who is the daughter of an immigrant.

But the Parkland teens have not taken these attacks lying down. After Fox News Host Laura Ingraham ridiculed Hogg for speaking publically about his having failed to gain entrance into several California colleges, he called for companies that advertise on her show to withdraw their ads. After over a dozen advertisers pulled their ads, Ingraham conveniently began a week-long vacation. Hogg has since rejected her subsequent apology. However, as the Parkland students continue their activism, and as calls for gun control grow louder, there is little doubt that forces on the far right will continue to launch attacks on Hogg, Gonzalez, and anyone else who attempts to stand up to the NRA - regardless of their age. It will be up to us to have their backs.

Notes

[1] Craig Timberg and Drew Harwell, "We Studied Thousands of Anonymous Posts About the Parkland Attack - And Found a Conspiracy in the Making," Washington Post, February 27, 2017.

[2] Ibid.,

[3] See https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/buzzfeed-white-people-guns/

[4] Jefferson Graham, " 'Crisis Actors' YouTube Video Removed After it Tops 'Trending' Videos," USA Today, February 21, 2018.

[5] Jonathan Albright, "Untrue-Tube: Monetizing Misery and Disinformation," Medium, February 25, 2017.

[6] NBC, "Megyn Kelly Reports on Alex Jones and Infowars," NBC News Web site, https://www.nbcnews.com/megyn-kelly/video/megyn-kelly-reports-on-alex-jones-and-infowars-970743875859 (accessed March 30, 2018).

[8] Genesis Communications Network, "The Alex Jones Show," February 15, 2018.

[9] See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSdtT_TdkRE (accessed March 30, 2018).

[10] www.hoggwatch.com

[11] Rebecca Bodenheimer, "Emma Gonzalez Isn't Endorsing Communism, She's Living Her Truth," CNN, March 28, 2018. https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/28/opinions/steve-king-has-emma-gonzalez-cuba-flag-wrong-bodenheimer/index.html (accessed April 1, 2018).

[12] Andrew Anglin, "Hero Steve King Calls for White Racial Supremacy in America," The Daily Stormer, March 12, 2017.

Identity Theft and the Body's Disappearance

(Art by Steve Cutts)

By Robert Bohm

"What sphinx of cement and aluminum bashed open their skulls and ate up their brains and imagination?"

- Allen Ginsberg from his poem " Howl "

Identity theft, at least the most familiar type, is possible because today the individual exists not merely as flesh and blood, but as flesh and blood spliced with bank account numbers, user names, passwords, credit card chips, etc. These added parts aren't secondary to the individual's overall identity, they're central to it. Sometimes they're all there is of it, as in many banking and purchasing transactions. In such instances, the data we've supplied to the relevant institutions doesn't merely represent us, it is us. Our bodies alone can't complete transactions without the account numbers, user names, passwords, credit card numbers, and ID cards which have become our identity's essence. Without them, in many ways, we don't exist.

In a worst case scenario, if someone gets hold of this private data, they can become us by possessing the data that is us. Following this, who or what we are is no longer a question. We don't exist, except in the form of a stolen dataset now under someone else's control.

In such a case, an unknown proxy has eliminated us and become who we once were.

Although problematic, the above form of identity theft is relatively minor. A worse form is one we all know about, yet chronically underestimate because we think of ourselves as too canny to be conned. Nonetheless, this other form of identity theft frames and limits everything we do. In the process, it fleeces us of the fullness of our identities and subjects our lives to a type of remote control. This remote control consists of the combined influence on us, from childhood onward, of society's major institutions and dominant activities, which seed us with a variety of parameters for how to acceptably navigate society and and its particular challenges.

This process is usually called "socialization." However, it's better seen as a sorting procedure in which society sifts us through a citizenship sieve in order to eliminate supposed defects, thereby guaranteeing that, despite each of us possessing unique characteristics, we share an underlying uniformity. Ultimately, this process is a kind of identity eugenics which strives to purify the population by eliminating or weakening troublesome qualities - e.g., an overly questioning attitude, chronic boundary-testing, a confrontational stance toward authority, a fierce protectiveness toward whatever space the body inhabits, etc. Such traits are frowned upon because they're seen by the status quo as a likely threat to society's stability.

Such indoctrination is much subtler yet, in many ways, more pervasive than outright propaganda. Its theater of operations is everywhere, taking place on many fronts. Public and private education, advertising, mass culture, government institutions, the prevailing ideas of how to correct socioeconomic wrongs (this is a "good" form of protest, this a "bad" one), the methods by which various slangs are robbed of their transgressive nature through absorption into the mainstream, the social production of substitute behaviors for nonconformity and rebellion - each of these phenomena and others play a role in generating the so-called "acceptable citizen," a trimmed down (i.e., possesses reduced potential) version of her or his original personality.

Make no doubt about it, this trimming of the personality is a form of identity theft. It is, in fact, the ultimate form. Take as an example the African slave in the U.S.: abducted from her or his homeland, forbidden from learning to read or write, denied legal standing in the courts, given no say over whether offspring would be sold to another owner or remain with them. The slave was robbed of her/his most essential identity, their status as a human being.

In his book, The Souls of Black Folk , W.E.B. Du Bois described this theft in terms of how slavery reduces the slave to a person with "no true self-consciousness" - that is, with no stable knowledge of self, no clear sense of who she or he is in terms of culture, preceding generations, rituals for bringing to fruition one's potential to create her or his own fate. As Du Bois correctly argued, this left the slave, and afterwards the freed Black, with a "longing to attain self-conscious manhood," to know who she or he was, to see oneself through one's own eyes and not through the eyes of one's denigrators - e.g., white supremacists, confederate diehards, "good" people who nonetheless regarded Blacks as "lesser," etc. Du Bois understood that from such people's perspectives, Blacks possessed only one identity: the identity of being owned, of possessing no value other than what its owner could extract from them. Without an owner to extract this value, the slave was either identity-less or possessed an identity so slimmed and emaciated as to be a nothing.

The point here isn't that today socialization enslaves the population in the same way as U.S. slavery once enslaved Blacks, but rather that identity theft is, psychologically and culturally speaking, a key aspect of disempowering people and has been for centuries. Today, because of mass culture and new technologies, the methods of accomplishing it are far more sophisticated than during other eras.

How disempowerment/identity theft occurs in contemporary society is inseparable from capitalism's current state of development. We long ago passed the moment (after the introduction of assembly line production in the early 20th century) when modern advertising started its trek toward becoming one of the most powerful socialization forces in the U.S. As such, it convinces consumers not only to purchase individual products but, even more importantly, sells us on the idea that buying in general and all the time, no matter what we purchase, is proof of one's value as a person.

To accomplish this end, modern advertising was molded by its creators into a type of PSYOP designed for destabilizing individuals' adherence to old saws like "a penny saved is a penny earned" and "without frugality none can be rich, and with it very few would be poor." Once this happened, the United States' days of puritan buying restraint were over. However, modern advertising was never solely about undermining personal fiscal restraint. It was also about manipulating feelings of personal failure - e.g., dissatisfaction with lifestyle and income, a sense of being trapped, fear of being physically unappealing, etc. - and turning them not into motives for self-scrutiny or social critiques, but into a spur for commodity obsession. This wasn't simply about owning the product or products, but an obsessive hope that buying one or more commodities would trigger relief from momentary or long-term anxiety and frustration related to one's life-woes: job, marriage, lack of money, illness, etc.

Helen Woodward, a leading advertising copywriter of the early decades of the 20th century, described how this was done in her book, Through Many Windows , published in 1926. One example she used focused on women as consumers:

The restless desire for a change in fashions is a healthy outlet. It is normal to want something different, something new, even if many women spend too much time and too much money that way. Change is the most beneficent medicine in the world to most people. And to those who cannot change their whole lives or occupations, even a new line in a dress is often a relief. The woman who is tired of her husband or her home or a job feels some lifting of the weight of life from seeing a straight line change into a bouffant, or a gray pass into a beige. Most people do not have the courage or understanding to make deeper changes.

Woodward's statement reveals not only the advertising industry's PSYOP characteristic of manipulating people's frustrations in order to lure them into making purchases, but also the industry's view of the people to whom it speaks through its ads. As indicated by Woodward's words, this view is one of condescension, of viewing most consumers as unable to bring about real socioeconomic change because they lack the abilities - "the courage or understanding" - necessary to do so. Consequently, their main purpose in life, it is implied, is to exist as a consumer mass constantly gorging on capitalism's products in order to keep the system running smoothly. In doing this, Woodward writes, buyers find in the act of making purchases "a healthy outlet" for troubled emotions spawned in other parts of their lives.

Such advertising philosophies in the early 20th century opened a door for the industry, one that would never again be closed. Through that door (or window), one could glimpse the future: a world with an ever greater supply of commodities to sell and an advertising industry ready to make sure people bought them. To guarantee this, advertisers set about creating additional techniques for reshaping public consciousness into one persuaded that owning as many of those commodities as possible was an existential exercise of defining who an individual was.

In his book The Consumer Society , philosopher Jean Baudrillard deals with precisely this process. He writes that such a society is driven by:

the contradiction between a virtually unlimited productivity and the need to dispose of the product. It becomes vital for the system at this stage to control not only the mechanism of production, but also consumer demand.

"To control ... consumer demand." This is the key phrase here. Capitalist forces not only wanted to own and control the means of production in factories, it also wanted to control consumers in such a way that they had no choice but to buy, then buy more. In other words, capitalism was in quest of a strategy engineered to make us synch our minds to a capitalism operating in overdrive ("virtually unlimited" production).

The way this occurs, Baudrillard argues, is by capitalism transforming (through advertising) the process of buying an individual product from merely being a response to a "this looks good" or "that would be useful around the house" attitude to something more in line with what psychologists call "ego integration." It refers to that part of human development in which an individual's various personality characteristics (viewpoints, goals, physical desires, etc.) are organized into a balanced whole. At that point, what advertising basically did for capitalism was develop a reconfigured ego integration process in which the personality is reorganized to view its stability as dependent on its life as a consumer.

Advertisers pulled this off because the commodity, in an age of commodity profusion, isn't simply a commodity but is also an indicator or sign referring to a particular set of values or behavior, i.e. a particular type of person. It is this which is purchased: the meaning, or constellation of meanings, which the commodity indicates.

In this way, the commodity, once bought, becomes a signal to others that "I, the owner, am this type of person." Buy an Old Hickory J143 baseball bat and those in the know grasp that you're headed for the pros. Sling on some Pandora bling and all the guys' eyes are on you as you hip-swing into the Groove Lounge. Even the NY Times is hip to what's up. If you want to be a true Antifa activist, the newspaper informed its readers on Nov. 29, 2017, this is the attire you must wear:

Black work or military boots, pants, balaclavas or ski masks, gloves and jackets, North Face brand or otherwise. Gas masks, goggles and shields may be added as accessories, but the basics have stayed the same since the look's inception.

After you dress up, it's not even necessary to attend a protest and fight fascists to be full-blown Antifa. You're a walking billboard (or signification) proclaiming your values everywhere. Dress the part and you are the part.

Let's return to Baudrillard, though. In The System of Objects , another of his books, he writes about how the issue of signification, and the method by which individuals purchase particular commodities in order to refine their identity for public consumption, becomes the universal mass experience:

To become an object of consumption, an object must first become a sign. That is to say: it must become external, in a sense, to a relationship that it now merely signifies ... Only in this context can it be 'personalized', can it become part of a series, and so on; only thus can it be consumed, never in its materiality, but in its difference.

This "difference" is what the product signifies. That is, the product isn't just a product anymore. It isn't only its function. It has transitioned into an indicator of a unique personality trait, or of being a member of a certain lifestyle grouping or social class, or of subscribing to a particular political persuasion, Republican, anarchist, whatever. In this way, choosing the commodities to purchase is essential to one's self-construction, one's effort to make sure the world knows exactly who they are.

The individual produced by this citizen-forming process is a reduced one, the weight of her/his full personality pared down by cutting off the unnecessary weight of potentials and inclinations perceived as "not a good fit" for a citizen at this stage of capitalism. Such a citizen, however, isn't an automaton. She or he makes choices, indulges her or his unique appetites, even periodically rebels against bureaucratic inefficiency or a social inequity perceived to be particularly stupid or unfair. Yet after a few days or few months of this activity, this momentary rebel fades back into the woodwork, satisfied by their sincere but token challenge to the mainstream. The woodwork into which they fade is, of course, their home or another favorite location (a lover's apartment, a bar, a ski resort cabin, a pool hall, etc.).

From this point on, or at least for the foreseeable future, such a person isn't inclined to look at the world with a sharp political eye, except possibly within the confines of their private life. In this way, they turn whatever criticism of the mainstream they may have into a petty gripe endowed with no intention of joining with others in order to fight for any specific change(s) regarding that political, socioeconomic or cultural phenomenon against which the complaint has been lodged. Instead, all the complainer wants is congratulations from her or his listener(s) about how passionate, on-target, and right the complaint was.

This is the sieve process, identity eugenics, in action. Far more subtle and elastic than previous methods of social control, it narrows what we believe to be our options and successfully maneuvers us into a world where advertising shapes us more than schools do. In this mode, it teaches us that life's choices aren't so much about justice or morality, but more about what choosing between commodities is like: which is more useful to me in my private life, which one better defines me as a person, which one makes me look cooler, chicer, brainier, hunkier, more activist to those I know.

It is in this context that a young, new, "acceptable" citizen enters society as a walking irony. Raised to be a cog in a machine in a time of capitalistic excess, the individual arrives on the scene as a player of no consequence in a game in which she or he has been deluded that they're the game's star. But far from being a star, this person, weakened beyond repair by the surrender of too much potential, is so without ability that she or he has no impact whatsoever on the game. Consequently, this individual is, for all practical purposes, an absence. The ultimate invisible person, a nothing in the midst of players who don't take note of this absence at all. And why should they? The full-of-potential individual who eventually morphed into this absence is long gone, remembered by no one, except as a fading image of what once was.

This process of reducing a potentially creative person into a virtual non-presence is a form of ideological anorexia. Once afflicted, an individual refuses nourishment until they're nothing but skin and bones. However, the "weight" they've lost doesn't consist of actual pounds. Instead, it involves a loss of the psychological heftiness and mental bulk necessary to be a full human being.

One can't lose more weight than that.

Human life as we once knew it is gone, replaced by the ritual of endless purchasing. This is existence in what used to be called "the belly of the beast." Our role in life has become to nourish capitalism by being at its disposal, by giving of ourselves. Such giving frequently entails self-mutilation: the debt, credit card and otherwise, that bludgeons to death the dreams of many individuals and families.

This quasi-religious self-sacrifice replicates in another form: the Dark Ages practice employed by fanatical monks and other flagellants who lashed themselves with whips made from copper wires, thereby ripping their flesh and bleeding until they descended into a state of religious hysteria. The more we give of ourselves in this way, the thinner and more weightless we become. Meanwhile, the god whom Allen Ginsberg called Moloch grows more obese day after day, its belly is filled with:

Robot apartments! invisible suburbs! skeleton treasuries! blind capitals! demonic industries! spectral nations! invincible madhouses! granite cocks! monstrous bombs!...

Dreams! adorations! illuminations! religions! the whole boatload of sensitive bullshit!

What capitalism wants from us, of course, isn't merely self-sacrifice, it's surrender. Hunger for life is viewed negatively by the status quo because it nourishes the self, making it stronger and more alert and, therefore, better prepared to assert itself. The fact that such an empowered self is more there (possesses more of a presence) than its undersized counterpart makes the healthier self unacceptable to the powers that be. This is because there-ness is no longer an option in our national life. Only non-there-ness is. If you're not a political anorexic, you're on the wrong side.

Wherever we look, we see it. Invisibility, or at least as much of it as possible, is the individual's goal. It's the new real. Fashion reveals this as well as anything. It does so by disseminating an ideal of beauty that fetishizes the body's anorexic wilting away. Not the body's presence but its fade to disappearance is the source of its allure. The ultimate fashion model hovers fragilely on the brink of absence in order not to distract from the only thing which counts in capitalism: the commodity to be sold - e.g., the boutique bomber jacket, the shirt, the pantsuit, the earrings, the shawl, the stilettos, the iPhone, the Ferrari, and, possibly most of all, the political passivity intrinsic to spending your life acquiring things in order to prove to others and ourselves that we've discovered in these things something more useful than Socrates' goal of knowing thyself or Emma Goldman's warning , "The most unpardonable sin in society is independence of thought."

What is true on the fashion runway is also true in politics. Just as the best model is one thin enough to fade into non-presence, so our democracy, supposedly ruled "by and for the people," has thinned down so much that "the people" can't even be seen (except as stage props), let alone get their hands on democracy except in token ways. No matter how often we the people are praised rhetorically by politicians, we aren't allowed as a group to get in the way of the capitalist system's freedom to do whatever it wants in order to sustain commodity worship and guarantee capital's right to permanent rule. If the military-industrial complex needs another war in order to pump out more profits, then so be it. We have no say in the matter. The identity theft built into society's structure makes sure of this. It's stripped us of our "weight" - our creativity, our willingness to take political risks, our capacity to choose action over posturing. After this forced weight loss, what's left of us is a mess. Too philosophically and psychologically anemic to successfully challenge our leaders' decisions, we, for all practical purposes, disappear.

As a reward for our passivity, we're permitted a certain range of freedom - as long as "a certain range" is defined as "varieties of buying" and doesn't include behavior that might result in the population's attainment of greater political power.

So, it continues, the only good citizen is the absent citizen. Which is to say, a citizen who has dieted him or herself into a state of political anorexia - i.e., that level of mental weightlessness necessary for guaranteeing a person's permanent self-exclusion from the machinery of power.

***

Our flesh no longer exists in the way it once did. A new evolutionary stage has arrived.

In this new stage, the flesh isn't merely what it seems to be: flesh, pure and simple. Instead, it's a hybrid. It's what exists after the mind oversees its passage through the sieve of mass culture.

After this passage, what the flesh is now are the poses it adopts from studying movies, rappers, punk rockers, fashionistas of all kinds, reality TV stars, football hunks, whomever. It's also what it wears, skinny jeans or loose-fitting chinos, short skirt or spandex, Hawaiian shirt or muscle tank top, pierced bellybutton, dope hiking boots, burgundy eyeliner. Here we come, marching, strolling, demon-eyed, innocent as Johnny Appleseed. Everybody's snapping pics with their phones, selfies and shots of others (friends, strangers, the maimed, the hilarious, the so-called idiotic). The flesh's pictures are everywhere. In movie ads, cosmetic ads, suppository ads, Viagra ads. This is the wave of the already-here but still-coming future. The actual flesh's replacement by televised, printed, digitalized and Photoshopped images of it produces the ultimate self-bifurcation.

Increasingly cut off from any unmediated life of its own, the flesh now exists mostly as a natural resource for those (including ourselves) who need it for a project; to photograph it, dress it up, pose it in a certain way, put it on a diet, commodify/objectify it in any style ranging from traditional commodification to the latest avant-garde objectification.

All these stylings/makeovers, although advertised as a form of liberation for the flesh (a "freeing" of your flesh so you can be what you want to be), are in fact not that. Instead, they are part of the process of distancing ourselves from the flesh by always doing something to it rather than simply being it.

When we are it, we feel what the flesh feels, the pain, the joy, the satisfaction, the terror, the disgust, the hints of hope, a sense of irreparable loss, whatever.

When we objectify it, it is a mannequin, emotionless, a thing that uses up a certain amount of space. As such we can do what we want with it: decorate it, pull it apart, vent our frustrations on it, starve it, practice surgical cuts on it, put it to whatever use we like. It isn't a person. It is separate from our personhood and we own it.

In fact we own all the world's flesh.

We live, after all, in the American Empire, and the Empire owns everything. As the Empire's citizens, we own everything it owns. Except for one thing: ourselves.

***

The flesh is both here and not here. Increasingly, it is more an object that we do things to - e.g., bulk it up, change its hair color, mass-kill it from a hotel window on the 32nd floor, view in a porno flick - than a presence in its own right (i.e., self-contained, a force to be reckoned with). In this sense, it is a growing absence, each day losing more of its self-determination and becoming more a thing lost than something that exists fully, on its own, in the here and now. Given this, the proper attitude to have toward the flesh is one of nostalgia.

Of course, the flesh hasn't really disappeared. What has disappeared is what it once was, a meat-and-bones reality, a site of pleasure and injury. Now, however, it's not so valuable in itself as it is in its in its role as a starting-off point for endless makeovers.

These makeover options are arrayed before the consumer everywhere: online, in big box stores, in niche markets and so on. Today, it is in these places, not at birth, that the flesh starts its trek toward maturation. It does this by offering itself up as a sacrifice to be used as they see fit by the fashion industry, the gym industry, the addiction-cure industry, the diet industry, the pharmaceutical industry, the education industry, etc. Each body in the nation reaches its fullest potential only when it becomes a testing site to be used by these industries as they explore more and better ways to establish themselves as indispensable to capitalism's endless reproduction.

In the end, the flesh, the target of all this competition for its attention, has less of a life on its own than it does as the object of advertisers' opinions about what can be done to improve it or to reconstruct it. Only to the extent that the flesh can transcend or reconstitute itself can it be said to be truly alive.

This last fact - about aliveness - represents the culmination of a process. This process pertains to the visualization and digitalization of everything and the consequent disappearance of everything behind a wall of signification.

A televised or computerized image, discussion, commentary, conjecture, etc., becomes the thing it meditates on, depicts or interprets. This happens by virtue of the fact that the thing itself (the real flesh behind the televised or computerized image, discussion, commentary, conjecture, etc.) has disappeared into the discussion or into the image of it presented on the computer or TV screen.

In the same way, an anorexic model (her/his flesh and blood presence) disappears into the fashions she or he displays for the public.

In each instance the thing (the flesh) now no longer exists except in other people's meditations on it; it has become those other people's meditations. The ultimate anorexic, it (the thing) has lost so much weight it's no longer physically there except as an idea in someone else's mind or in a series of binary codings inside computers.

This is the final victory of absence over there-ness, of the anorexic ideal over the idea of being fully human (i.e., "bulging with existence," "fat with life"). The self has been successfully starved to the point of such a radical thinness that it can no longer stand up to a blade of grass, let alone make itself felt by the powers that be.

This originally appeared at realprogressiveusa.com

Why We Need To Share Millennial Stories Through Independent Platforms

By Zhivko Illeieff

I owe my introduction to American culture to the stand-up comedy of Bill Hicks and George Carlin. This culture hack, fortunate for me and perhaps terrifying for any ruling class, was possible because I was born and raised in Bulgaria where BitTorrent technology in the 2000's gave me access to counter-culture content that wasn't available on traditional media, as opposed to Baywatch, Friends, and every Bulgarian grandparents' favorite, The Bold And The Beautiful.

Once you resonate with higher truth in one medium, it tends to lead you to similar expressions in other places. Hicks and Carlin lead me to the art of Alex Grey and Robert Crumb, the music of Frank Zappa and Tool, the writings of Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn, the philosophy of Cornel West, and other artists and truth-tellers whose dissenting ideas had found ways to escape the filtration devices of the information industry.

In the meantime, I witnessed how the Bulgarian oligarchy fought for control of the country's drug trade, information channels, industries, and ultimately power over the Bulgarian population.

Much like the U.S., different messiahs and economic "experts" from important places like Wall Street and The World Bank often descend into the Bulgarian political stage with empty promises of progress and equality, only to push the country further into corporate control . The events after 1989, when "communists" became "democrats" overnight, were characterized by mass privatization, increased inequality through the gospel of austerity, high levels of corruption, radicalization of right-wing parties, and widespread demoralization of young people who became apathetic to political issues. Most "well-intentioned" politicians, pundits, and experts who revolved around marketing campaigns to "fix Bulgaria" turned out to be frauds who bamboozled the Bulgarian population through their narratives.

Today, about 2.5 million Bulgarians, or nearly 35% of the country's population, live in severe material deprivation , meaning they can't afford to pay for rent or other basic necessities.

Those responsible for Bulgaria's downward spiral are not unlike their American counterparts. They use the same techniques (mass media control, extreme censorship, cuts in social programs, market monopolization, and other neoliberal tactics), and achieve the same results-increased income inequality, low living standards, mass demoralization, ineffective health care, political polarization, and so on.

Not much is needed to connect the dots. In the end of the day, the mechanism which turns public wealth into private gains boils down to how the ruling elite uses different narratives to manipulate the opinions and behaviors of millions of people . What the work of artists, musicians, comedians, and activists teaches us is how to spot this mechanism. Simply put, truth-tellers point out what oligarchs around the world work hard to conceal-the truth about poverty , war , and capitalism , the power of language , the mechanism of propaganda , and other "cracks in the Matrix."

After I moved to the U.S., I quickly understood why the counter-culture icons I discovered oversees are not embraced by " official culture " in the U.S.-what they say is viewed as a threat to the ruling class. Individuals and platforms that elevate independent thinking are bound to be recuperated, whitewashed, censored, silenced, and ridiculed by the economic and political elite, and replaced by less-threatening ideologies, often by those who hide behind their allegiance to democracy. This is why talking about last night's football game or Hollywood's latest ode to the U.S. military makes you a "productive member of society," while questioning the Democrat-Republican duopoly and other manifestations of the corporate state makes you a "conspiracy theorist" or, more recently, a "Russian spy."

Yet, tricksters tend to find their way around culture engineers. And once their truth resonates with your beliefs, it is hard to go back to corporate-funded, commercially interrupted daily news and propaganda.

The lessons that Hicks and Carlin taught me early on in my life were more useful than any official education I received, as their comedy not only analyzed the fabric of American greed, but also provided a framework for deconstructing the propaganda that enables such greed to take place on a massive scale . Who can watch Hicks's bit on the first Iraq war and not describe his critique of the military industrial complex as prophetic? This is especially true in 2017, when 89% of U.S. Democrats voted in favor of a $700 billion defense policy bill.

It is such signs of "bipartisanship" that reveal the one essential counter-culture lesson-question everything. Question the Democrats. Question the Republicans. Question the news. Question even those who tell you to question and especially those who tell you not to. This is the legacy of those who stood up and "lifted the veil" to expose, in Zappa's famous words, "the brick wall at the back of the theater." There are many who continue this work today. It is a fight worth having.

One vital part of this fight is about the right to shape our stories-not by being passive, obedient consumers, but by talking with each other, working through our differences, and living in a society where people's voices matter. To do so, we have to expose and counter top-down efforts that box us into categories and divide us through elaborate fairy tales.

Perhaps this is why I pursued projects that allowed me to document first-person narratives. In college, I lead a team that documented diverse perspectives about the totalitarian regime in Bulgaria. After that, I worked at Appalshop, short for "Appalachian Workshop," where I produced work that voiced the concerns of Appalachians and rural America. Both places have a lot in common-their people, history, traditions, and natural beauty represent a treasure for humanity. Yet, they are plagued by the results of political and corporate greed, as well as propaganda that vilifies and blames the poor for their problems, while pushing the neoliberal agenda of "corporations first."

Popular culture often neglects the rich history and traditions of those places and focuses on diminishing them and their people. Bulgarians are portrayed as hordes of immigrants and unskilled workers bent on storming the shores of Britain and other "civilized" countries. Similarly, Appalachians have a long history of being a target for journalists, photographers, and pundits who exploit and sensationalize people's addictions and financial struggles.

Even worse-a selected few who come from such places often use their heritage to add credibility to negative stereotypes portrayed in the mainstream media. I see this in Bulgarian politicians who diminish their own country's heritage for private gains. I see it in J.D. Vance's "Hillbilly Elegy," which continues to be heavily criticized for its disingenuous accounts of the causes of Appalachian struggles.

Such commentators are entitled to their opinions. However, their efforts to speak on behalf of millions of people, while ignoring the institutional and corporate causes of inequality and structural violence , need to be examined and countered. This is especially true in cases where "official culture" coronates such individuals as spokespersons for millions of people.

A case in point was the 2016 presidential election in which the U.S. mainstream media provided a tribune to a real estate magnate and a hustler, and thus legitimized him as a viable candidate. Today, those same corporate pundits, owned by the Comcasts and Walt Disney's of the world, cast themselves as leaders of "the Resistance."

Similarly, evoking the "millennial generation" often becomes a way for corporate media to control the narrative of tens of millions of people. By letting corporate forces frame the issues of young Americans, we also let them set the limits of the range of opinions that are allowed to pass through mainstream media. Chomsky advises that we view agenda-setting media as what they truly are-corporations owned by even bigger conglomerates Therefore, corporate media's content on the "millennial generation" can be viewed as a product that utilizes the millennial label for its own profit.

Do you ever wonder why the origin of the millennial label is not well known? As it turns out, the label originated from the books of Neil Howe and William Strauss-two amateur historians with connections to the ruling class . Essentially, they transformed the idea of generations into a capitalist-friendly, reductive narrative that provides a story for anyone willing to ignore its lack of scientific credibility .

While there's certainly a case to be made for using generational labels as a shorthand to investigating complex societal issues (as this blog post hopefully illustrates), there's a difference between genuine inquiries into generational dynamics, and using such labels to sensationalize or obfuscate the issues of tens of millions of people for private benefit.

I regard the millennial label as an instrument for corporate and government propaganda that is so deeply entrenched in our society that many of us don't even know where it came from . I believe this is by design-the myth is sustained by obfuscating its origins. And its origins lead to, you guessed it, attempts to manipulate and profit from us.

If you are skeptical, consider this:

Does it matter that Strauss and Howe, who coined the millennial label in 1987, before many millennials were even born, have connections to "deficit hawk" billionaires like Pete Peterson (known for his attempts to spread the gospel of austerity through " engaging the next generation "?

Does it matter that neoliberals like Newt Gingrich called Strauss and Howe's first book an "intellectual tour de force," and have since been invited by self-appointed "millennial" organizations to preach about generational struggles?

Does it matter that Steve Bannon was inspired by their theories , and has worked with Howe on "several film projects?"

Does it matter that Strauss and Howe created a business out of their generational forecasts?

Does it matter that dozens of "millennial-lead" organizations are using the millennial label to peddle the same economic policies that have annihilated democracy in America and the rest of the world?

Does it matter that books about millennials, and written by millennials, use Koch-sponsored propaganda to argue that young Americans don't approve of welfare programs and would put them " on the chopping block " if given the chance?

To me, it does. In fact, I consider this "chopping and screwing" of the American population to be one of the greatest frauds of our time. Not because there's no value in thinking in terms of generations, or because generations don't exist. It is the perversion of the concept into a product-selling operation that exposes its use as an instrument for propaganda.

While previous works on the subject, such as Karl Mannheim's The Problem of Generations , read as an invitation to deepen our understanding of the concept of generations, Strauss and Howe took a more controversial approach-they combined the concept of generational analysis with historical prophecy; a move that, by their own admission, didn't fare well with traditional historians and scholars.

"What we think that politicians or marketers, in particular product salesmen who are concerned about how to reach generations , should think about as they read our book and try to decide how to get elected or launch a new product line," says Strauss in a 1991 CSPAN interview , "…is look real hard at the section of our book that will certainly be most controversial with historians. That is, we have a 50 page chapter on what the future of the cycle will be…we call it 'Completing the Millennial Cycle.'"

A closer examination of the label's use exposes its role as a "hook" used by a vast network of nonprofits, businesses, and marketing agencies that aim not to understand the people behind the millennial label, but to influence society's opinion of them, and ultimately influence their opinion of themselves.

The justification that is usually used by those who employ the millennial label echoes the words of Edward Bernays, the father of Propaganda :

"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, and our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of…It is they who pull the wires that control the public mind."

The trick worked. Today, most mainstream news platforms and "authoritative" magazines talk about millennials (some 80 million people) like they are a monolithic entity, when in fact they exhibit the same differences that are present in the rest of our society. Yet, most news outlets gloss over the origins of the label, its use, and monetization.

More importantly, it is not your opinions that are being elevated in the media and regarded as "millennial insights." It is the opinions of people who are allowed to pass through the gates of corporate-lead news platforms. A prime example is Jason Dorsey, a rather older millennial, who is often quoted as an "expert on millennial issues," when in fact he is simply promoting his business of selling "insights" about millennials and the upcoming generational brand of people, Generation Z.

Where are the activist millennials? The poor millennials? The millennials who didn't graduate from college? Where are the millennials who would rather talk about substantive issues, instead of selling their own generation in the form of "insights" to the ruling class?

While we intrinsically know that addressing millions of people with a single word is a laughable proposition, cultural engineers have justified, and profited from, these divisions in our society. This is how we have exposed our minds to the brainwashing that usually follows efforts that use biology and marketing to draw conclusions about people's "collective identity."

My research into the topic exposed a new world of possibilities in the same way Hicks and Carlin's comedy opened my eyes to a deeper understanding of reality. What would happen if, instead of selling insights about millennials, there was a way for anyone to add their story to the collective millennial narrative, without being an "expert" on millennial issues? In other words, what would a true bottom-up platform for millennial stories look like?

These questions lead me to create postmillennial.org , a story-sharing platform that makes it easy for millennials and their allies to create and share content about their experiences without the spin that usually follows such accounts.

The platform addresses a major obstacle in publishing content about millennials - it makes it easy for those who fall into the millennial age cohort and their allies to share their perspectives on various issues. The idea is to generate content that is intellectually stimulating, instead of the usual "millennials, those who are x-to-x years old" articles that, willingly or not, mistake birth cohorts with generations.

Most importantly, postmillennial does not owe allegiance or give editorial control to any Party or corporation.

Unlike The Lily, a Washington Post "visually driven product designed for millennial women," postmillennial is not sponsored by JP Morgan .

Unlike Goldman Sachs-sponsored articles in The Atlantic, postmillennial does not compare generations in sensationalist terms .

Unlike "millennial" advocacy organizations , it does not peddle trickle-down economics on behalf of millions of people.

Sure, news platforms need money to survive. However, if we continue to let billionaires decide the faith of our platforms of information, like they do with our political process, we might as well throw in the towel now.

I believe that a millennial-focused platform that is open to diverse perspectives and thoughts has the power to reclaim the millennial narrative, even in the presence of industries that actively work in the opposite direction. We can use the privately engineered label to our advantage, and work to change the millennial label from an expression of the capitalist system and its media culture, to an evolving dialogue where all voices matter.

This originally appeared at postmillennial.org

Zhivko Illeieff is a writer & media producer. He is also the founder of postmillennial, a story-sharing platform that lets millennials and their allies create and share content about their experiences without the corporate spin. He may be contacted at hello@postmillennial.org