By William Thorpe
I'm William Thorpe Virginia exiled me to the Texas prison system. I'm solitary confined at the Wainwright Unit and if you feel any kinda way about this work contact me by Securus email using the Texas prison number #2261982
“Independent analysis of Virginia’s political culture, prisons, and state power.”
By William Thorpe
I'm William Thorpe Virginia exiled me to the Texas prison system. I'm solitary confined at the Wainwright Unit and if you feel any kinda way about this work contact me by Securus email using the Texas prison number #2261982
Of course as metaphor and font for contradictions, the Bible is beloved. But my work isn't about that resolution. 21 Savage is an artist and I like the way his "A Lot" sounds, because sometimes, simply stripping stuff down minimally qualifies it and when we talk about reforming Virginia's Imprisonment scheme, its Parole Antagonism has "A Lot" of contradictions, that require honesty and not gimmicks that add on to it's already to no ends Universe of Contradictions. Parole as fact of the human condition is basically humans, unconditionally stating that nothing is infallible and if there will be certain responses and reactions to human social behavior, then no one is so full of their self, that certitude aside, the recognition that "cause" is equally accountable as behavior, isn't fundamental to the business of human existence. So, with this stated, let's get at Virginia's Parole system. So first of all, despite the fact there isn't anyone amongst us, as Humans, that is, who will dare lay claim to omniscience, but those crooked and corrupt with its hubris, still endeavor to embody its certitude by exploiting it as surrogacy. In other words, they're canny and cagey enough to know that, Society will reject certitude without self-aware limitations, so they frame and couch it as "values" of make your pick of font, be it "tradition" or some other assumed unimpeachable source. The point is the fact that the entire scheme is a motive of their self-interest, which isn't exposed and held to account by scrutiny, is a result of, for one those subjected to its suppositions, regardless of reasons are not speaking up. So there isn't a practical accounting that goes beyond convention. So, we see Speech defaming and employing liability against all sorts of constructs, hypocritically, which as it concerns this work, Virginia's Parole structure, without having to actually defend anything. This state of affairs isn't a mere expression of social ignorance, but is also the emergence of unforeseen consequences, which again isn't exposed as evidence of its bogus and spurious thought. So it continues to exist under Newtonian motion as a truism, despite the obviousness of its status quo genesis, which, naturally has an interest bias, but becomes a self-affirming "irreproachable" default, which to call to account an entire type of political energy, subsequently has to be expended to ablate its rust on the Social Contract and the business of human existence. I have structured all of this, to show that to reform Virginia's Parole intention, requires the work of, akin to an archeological excavation, where the facts speak without the corruption of suppositions, ignorance's, unforeseen consequences and the reactionary motive and what we have laid bare are contradictions that because we now confront them within the original dictatorship of its intention, which is Parole is a construct, a social good to be acted on. Despite the People being the Supreme Power in the Commonwealth of Virginia or to present it as "Popular Sovereignty", its means of actualization is by Electoral Representation. Which is eligible, conscientious and serious Virginians vote for Virginians who will represent their thought and will as governance. However, the People of Virginia have to know and understand whatever the formulations of their primary and secondary issues and concerns are so that existential business of human existence can be materialized as relatively stable as possible. The issue of Parole also falls under, this relative stability pursuit, yet its where we see its absence.
By William Thorpe
I'm William Thorpe Virginia exiled me to the Texas prison system. I'm solitary confined at the Wainwright Unit and if you feel any kinda way about this work contact me by Securus email using the Texas prison number #2261982
By William Thorpe
I'm William Thorpe Virginia exiled me to the Texas prison system. I'm solitary confined at the Wainwright Unit and if you feel any kinda way about this work contact me by Securus email using the Texas prison number #2261982
Thorpe states explicitly that biographical details of people born into the post‑1400 world are not “true, correct and authentic” accounts of their human condition. He says they are merely descriptions of how a shackled person adjusts the chains — a metaphor he uses directly in the post .
This is the foundation of his legitimacy:
If the world‑system itself is a dehumanizing structure,
and every subject‑victim is born already inside it,
then any biography that pretends to describe “the person” is actually describing the imposed conditions.
Thorpe is arguing that biography, as normally practiced, is a genre of distortion — it records the effects of domination, not the human.
This is why he refuses to engage in conventional biography.
Thorpe is not avoiding biography because he dislikes details. He is rejecting biography because it is epistemologically compromised.
He says biographical narratives of post‑1400 subject‑victims are:
not authentic accounts of human condition
only narratives of how people handle imposed conditions
misleading because they treat imposed detours as personal choices
This is a methodological stance: You cannot describe a person accurately if the entire world they inhabit is already distorted by domination.
Thus, refusing biography is an act of intellectual integrity.
Thorpe’s argument rests on a civilizational timeline: “post‑1400.”
In his framework:
The 1400s mark the birth of the racialized, Christian‑imperial world order.
Every human born after that moment is born into a pre‑structured condition of usurpation and circumscription.
Therefore, biography cannot describe “the person,” only “the detour imposed on the person.”
This is why he says:
“the effects of the post‑1400 cause imposed a detour on his life that he never sought nor seeked”
Thorpe’s legitimacy comes from the consistency of this frame:
If the world is structurally dehumanizing,
then biography is structurally misleading.
He is not cherry‑picking. He is applying the same logic to Sostre, Malcolm X, MLK, and himself.
Thorpe argues that the only reason figures like Sostre, Malcolm X, and MLK appear in history at all is because of their opposition and resistance to the post‑1400 world order.
This is crucial:
Biography focuses on “life events.”
Thorpe focuses on the confrontation with domination.
He says:
If not for the imposed detours, these men would have lived entirely different lives.
Their historical significance is not their biography — it is their resistance.
Thus, biography is not only misleading — it is politically evasive.
It hides the system and foregrounds the individual.
Thorpe flips that.
Thorpe anticipates the counterargument: “Detours happen in life; that’s just the human condition.”
He responds:
Yes, detours happen.
But you cannot pretend that detours caused by domination are the same as detours caused by chance.
He insists on distinguishing:
the enslaver’s agency (which must be indicted)
the enslaved’s resistance (which must be understood)
This distinction is the backbone of his legitimacy.
He is not rejecting biography out of preference — he is rejecting it because it collapses domination and resistance into the same category, which is intellectually dishonest.
He applies the same logic to:
Sostre
Malcolm X
Martin Luther King Jr.
himself (exiled by Virginia to Texas, writing from solitary confinement)
This consistency is what gives his stance legitimacy.
He is not selectively refusing biography. He is universally refusing biography for all post‑1400 subject‑victims.
That universality is the mark of a coherent theory.
Thorpe says the status quo wants people ignorant of Sostre.
Why?
Because biography reduces Sostre to:
dates
places
personal details
“life events”
Thorpe insists that Sostre’s real significance is:
his legal framework
his demand for accountability
his exposure of the imprisonment scheme’s depravity
Thus, refusing biography is a way of refusing the state’s preferred narrative.
It is an act of reclamation.
Thorpe ends the post by stating:
“Virginia exiled me to the Texas prison system. I’m solitary confined at the Wainwright Unit…”
This positionality gives his critique weight:
He is not theorizing from outside.
He is writing from inside the machinery of domination.
His refusal of biography is grounded in lived experience of how the system distorts human life.
This is not abstraction — it is testimony.
By vapac
By William Thorpe
I'm William Thorpe Virginia exiled me to the Texas prison system. I'm solitary confined at the Wainwright Unit and if you feel any kinda way about this work contact me by Securus email using the Texas prison number #2261982