Damian M. Schloming ideas and information

Naomi Wolf on rape: "...ours is increasingly an age of geopolitics by blackmail."

This website is to allow me to present intelligibly my thoughts and insights on various social, political, historical and even scientific issues I've been studying in the past two years. 

Some of which I have background knowledge of due to having been involved with and interested in various political movements many years ago. 

My political viewpoint leans towards libertarian, except that I am not completely happy with the way some of them think. Libertarians want limited government and civil liberties. As a matter of principle, that is excellent. But then libertarians seem to suffer from this ingrained bias of Western Culture that you can somehow intellectually decide that government "should be" a certain way and then the perfect society can then be achieved by some legislative body sitting down and crafting some written rule decreeing that that is how society is to be from now on.

 

Actually, I think government and the larger society it is embedded in is more like some kind of living beast that you can train or that can morph in one direction or another, but it can't be so easily manipulated or changed as we think. Written rules don't have the exact effect they literally intend, but instead enforcement of the rules and all sorts of other considerations regarding government bureaucracies results in all sorts of ripple effects or unintended consequences. As a result, the most free society does not necessarily result from the one with the nicest and most free sounding written constitution or constitutional rights guaranteeing liberty. A very good example of this issue is the liberal Warren Court expanding all sorts of fifth amendment procedural and technical criminal protections for defendants. Liberals saying they want to do this might be arguing this is to help the poor. The opposite is the truth. This is to help defense attorneys, and why is that a bad thing? Because criminal procedures and technicalities of the liberal Warren Court only resulted in defendants having protection IF they could hire an expensive enough attorney to do a good enough job PRESSING them. Public defenders are part of the corrupt court system, they deliberately do a bad job so as to make sure well heeled defendants find it worth their while to pay extra. Huge sentences ALSO give well heeled defendants more incentive to pay extra. Thus, defense attorneys representing rich criminal defendants have a vested interest in maintaining the strict sentencing policies responsible for Mass Incarceration. Furthermore, there was a law school bubble which burst, and now law schools are doing poorly because lawyers are not finding it worth their while to spend so much money on a law degree. Fact of the matter is, those liberal Warren Court protections indirectly increased legal fees for defense attorneys, thereby contributing to the upward pressure on college tuition and law school tuition, simply because the amount of money attorneys could make from a law degree made it more worthwhile. 

It also is true that the regulatory state increased in many other ways, increasing demand for attorneys in other spheres besides the criminal justice system. But I am going to talk about the criminal justice system here for now to use it as an example.

This is just one example showing how a policy that, examined in the most superficial way you think it's designed to help criminal defendants overall in the long run has the exact opposite effect. Because these protections are ones that only can be accessed by those with the money to pay for top dollar attorneys. And, it isn't always necessarily related to the facts of the case. The attorney usually has an incestuous relationship with everyone else in the court system, so much so that basically if you pay the right attorney enough money, you will get off because he is friends with all the judges and prosecutors, and parole officers, etc.

And for me to say that could lead to others thinking it is rather awful to have a court system so incestuously corrupt. Except, these are all nice people who know each other and court systems have ALWAYS been like this, more or less. And they always will be this way. Government is incapable of being perfect. Understanding its inherent imperfections such as this are necessary when it comes to avoiding passing laws which interact with such a culture in a way to produce very bad outcomes.

 

After all, we have always had government and, for some reason, it would appear if we always have had it, that is because we need it. The inner workings of government are so awful, you discover after you observe it, it can easily lead many to think we should just abolish it. But, given that that is impossible, the best alternative is to understand it as inherently flawed, and realistically think of how to make things "the least bad."

This is what I have thought for a long time, yet only recently have I stumbled across some law professors who subscribe to a movement called "legal realism." It turns out they think exactly the way I do, and see the same flaws in our society (or in the thinking of popular culture which leads to wrong-headed policies in our legal system) that I see.

Oddly enough, they seem to describe themselves as leftists yet they are not the kind of ordinary mainstream leftist most people would understand to be "of the left." Which is strange because I never would have thought of myself as a liberal -- but not a conservative either. But maybe this is because of certain strands of liberalism I have been exposed to which are quite awful. 

In any case, why categorize oneself? As I study and learn more about society, I like to share various insights and not limit myself to any one "box" or "category" that I pigeonhole myself into.

One thing I left out - scary

I wrote the following below:

"However, around this time I had been convinced -- by a few untrustworthy others, one of whom happened to include this Comp Sci student who worked for microsoft -- that the only way to handle things was to "make a deal" to cover things up, or to HALF cover things up. Cover some things up, so some people are held accountable for committing crimes against me (which couldn't be covered up) but then a cover story is floated which preserves Harvard's reputation, and the reputation of other high profile players."

-----

This was Christopher Thorpe. Now as for things he said, first of all he was in touch with Jordan Tigani all along. Then at one point he told me he was working in Argentina, which he said was beautiful but very very very corrupt. He also mentions, after I started confiding to him that (as other people told me) my problems had something to do with the mafia, that his parents were "well meaning" in some sense so, as a result, he was "now quite powerful." 

He was also the one responsible for prompting me to forward enough of my documentation to Harvard so -- well I think they used it as blackmail for their fund raising campaign and I can see how they would have been very eager to have all that dirt on what was going on with me. 

It is not clear to me whose side he was really on because he did think Harvard was terrible and also would always remind me of how the way Harvard handled the bullying and sexual harassment by Jordan Tigani and his room mate was an indication of how they were "against you from the very start." 

[Added 7-8-2017. I need to add a little caveat here. First of all, Christopher Thorpe would always say "Harvard showed its true colors with you from the very start over how they handled" that situation regarding my former hallmates. Also, nothing Christopher Thorpe said standing by itself would have led me necessarily to conclude something along the lines of a half cover up I describe is what's necessary and, indeed, how the system works and I must go along with something like that or else I'll be one of the casualties of the half cover up that is scheduled or planned anyway. You have to take something he said, or a few things he said, and then understand certain things that went on with my attorney hired to get me off on these charges I was set up on, the education he gave me over how the system works and how I cannot or must not complain about wrong doing by cops, I can only complain about wrong doing by non-cops so long as uncovering that wrong doing doesn't cause cops to get into trouble too for collusion,  thus there already a half cover up would be necessary. And, tricks threatened against me should I refuse to go along with a corrupt settling of the situation involved my evidence being thrown out or tampered with by cops, fake evidence planted, etc. And I could go into extensive detail, but it's quite complicated. And then this Dana Bogdar also communicated several things that helped me come to that conclusion. In other words, Christopher Thorpe did not on his own tell me some kind of half cover up had to occur. Rather, for me to feel backed into a corner AND simultaneously "educated" into the notion that that's how the system worked involved the complicated machinations of a number of people, and for me to explain all that would be lengthy, and require taking information from here, there, elsewhere, put it all together and all. Here is where I had previously had electric shock treatment plus oxygen starvation, and it damaged my hippocampus in a way so that, when too stressed out, or too severely emotionally or psychologically abused or stressed in just the right manner, my brain will baulk at the prospect of figuring out how to write out all of this information, I just won't be able to do it or won't feel able to do it, unless able to find myself a situation where I can discuss things calmly and in a safe environment with someone who is supportive, and because of that I will go and simply avoid doing that, and substitute a written summary or a simplistic statement that includes part of the information, but not a whole complicated discussion of things. And therefore could look erroneous -- or, at least, those in a position to want to try to cover things up and discredit me would seize upon that as an excuse to disbelieve me -- all the while refusing to question me in a manner that would result in me clarifying anything. Though, Christopher Thorpe was a Harvard elite who was not home schooled like me. Him acting in a manner that would confirm what I might have doubted was true based on conversations I had with lowlifes was very decisive. So, of course, I focused on him. And, the solution for anyone who reads that and doesn't find it too clear or convincing is to ask me what about what Christopher Thorpe and what he said led me to quote him there and say he was responsible for me feeling sure a half cover up had to occur. He along with a few other Harvard or other elites who, if you talk to them and they seem on the same page, well?  The key here is, you don't seize upon glossed over simplifications done in an environment where one is required to do everything in a rush amid severe stress and isolation as an excuse to refuse to believe someone and refuse to investigate further. You go look at that, notice it is unclear, and then ASK why I'd have concluded such a thing, all the while allowing me the opportunity to explain something that may well be complicated.

I notice that, when this website was written or when parts of it were written, I was experiencing psychological torture from members of the gay hook up scene that couldn't be better at aggravating whatever incapacitation I had in this regard, as well as I was isolated from individuals with whom I could properly verbally talk things through with, which is another requirement I have in order to think things through properly in order to articulate things properly. Something which, again, might be especially peculiar or unique to me and related to brain damage or other handicaps that would have come from a very bizarre upbringing that was experimental it would seem and resulted in me being deprived of an environment where I could learn to speak properly until after I was 15.]

However, as regards to the handling of my situation, I had already hired a lawyer, and had started emailing an attorney, and of course all my emails sent to the attorney were monitored by the NSA. And I do know it was pretty obvious to me that was the case, sort of like tons of gay men in Boston knew all about lots of things I told my attorney and I'd often meet up with gay men who'd tell me things that were sort of nearly exact quotes of "inside information" -- e.g., things I had emailed my attorney. 

This was when Christopher Thorpe said something to me, in passing, regarding how people are going to start saving their asses. But that there are some people who, after the things they have done, they can't. And then he says, online "some of them will be killed and some of them will be indighted." 

You have to then understand that many other individuals told me, if I am lucky, I can get police to investigate things, rather than try to cover things up in a way that amounts to somehow doing away with me, but they'll insist on covering some things up. And I have to agree to that. 

[Added February 2018: I should note. Everything everyone told me regarding how a half cover up had to occur happened in context with the crimes perpetrated against me being dismissed, cops and associated agencies kicking me out and baldly telling me I have to stop talking to them and they will not protect me, and then subsequent crimes continuing to occur which were way worse than the original, and at some point way scarier and bizarre. And which were, systematically and repeatedly covered up over and over again by police and medical professionals. And then my lawyer started bellowing at me and basically telling me that I have to shut up about anything that might implicate cops or members of the system in wrong doing they do not want to be exposed over. Here is where this Dana Bogdar then starts telling me that things will be covered up, I need to go along with it, and they will start doing to others -- other potential witnesses -- what they were doing to me, only much worse, just to keep them quiet. I should note, by that time, I'd been involuntarily drugged and raped many times, as well as had drug planted on me, framed, had hospitals rig tests in order to cover up what really occurred, and then threaten me that they could deliberately play dumb and allow me to die if they wanted to, but otherwise I hadn't had worse types of retaliation like broken legs and other things potentially leading to very serious injuries. Such measures, I was told by Dana Bogdar, were going to be carried out now that higher level individuals within the mafia found out what had been going on and started to view what I had witnessed or experienced as something they need to cover up in a serious way. And they despise nothing worse than rats or snitches, in which case if I portrayed myself as someone willing to cover everything up, rather than a trouble maker who is always trying to go to the police about people, then other people besides myself will be viewed as the real troublemakers in this matter, the ones who instigated it by date rape drugging me, having me raped, and then subsequently subjected to incidences apparently threatening to the mafia via my potential to be a witness through no fault of my own. Notice how everything about this situation can be seen as an effort by crooked cops and medical professionals into saying whatever would help them be able to portray me as amenable to cooperating with a series of potential terrorist incidences to be carried out by others. At the same time, of course, the ways in which they threatened and intimidated me were intended to be covered up in exactly the right manner so they could accuse me of taking that position totally on my own, or at the very least without very serious coercion. I should note, at some point all such reprisals ceased, and I was able to say what I wanted without further retaliation. And I eventually did end up little by little opening up about the whole story. By then, the Boston Bombing had happened, but what is also the case is, I should have felt safe to come forward much longer ago, however members of the gay community were engaging in such severe psychological torture of me and gas lighting of me that I remained intimidated far longer than I should have. I was being deprived of all the social support necessary. It is these individuals who later were blackmailed and used as guinea pigs for extremely debilitating and permanently damaging medical experiments involving fake organs, fake rectums, and robotic medical enhancements. All, I note, by the same medical system that was responsible for working with crooked cops and drug addicts to intimidate me in this manner in the first place. Which means this whole thing was probably premeditated with a desire to recruit guinea pigs for involuntary medical experiments only very serious blackmail can induce people to volunteer themselves over. And, they probably were involved in the Boston Bombing in some way. And I note, prior to the Boston Bombing, bullying within the Rhode Island gay community involved all manners of nasty treatment of me, causing me to avoid essentially everyone except for this one guy in Fall River who, strangely enough, did not pull all the same crap with me that so many others did. I should even note, before finding this one guy in Fall River to hook up with -- someone I would not have chosen but for the fact that this was the only person who wasn't horrible to me -- let me give a good example of the tricks everyone else would pull to cause me to avoid them. In one instance, five hook ups in a row, every single gay man I tried to hook up with had diarrhea when he came to my place. That's how far they went to try to steer me in that direction, while trying to make it look like I rejected them for no good reason. Here is where, this type of abuse from the hook up scene was something I was enduring non-stop in Providence, and for awhile I was complaining bitterly to many people about it, to no avail. By the time I get steered towards that Fall River guy via diarrhea and other similarly awful nasty behaviors, I had given up complaining largely due to -- well, in a way this was psychological. They did what had always worked in the past to get me to stop complaining about abuse, whether it was to get me to stop talking about abuse at Harvard, or to get me to stop talking about being date rape drugged and raped, or to get me to stop complaining about the abuse that eventually caused me to be steered towards that Fall River guy: they had someone lead me on and cause me to become attached to him, set him up as someone who was a potential sympathetic figure who I could complain about the abuse to, who then proceeded to betray me in a cruel way and cut me off abruptly. And it worked. They were able to steer me towards this Fall River guy -- who much later on did start talking about all his Muslim connections on facebook -- via abuse that I simply didn't complain about. Of course, I know they were being monitored closely perhaps by the FBI and caught, kind of like everyone knows what they did. If that Fall River guy knew the Boston Bombers, then they were doing this in order to help dispense with me as a witness.

Let me also ad, for a short time, actually just once, I spoke to this female cop involved in handling prostitution issues, and she literally had said, with regard to the mafia and with regard to my situation, when I explained that so far I don't seem to have offended the mafia as they haven't done anything to me yet, that "in these types of situations, they usually wait for things to die down first, and then they do something." Note, death threats were on my computer, I had just complained about rape, I had been framed on drug charges in a manner that was an obvious frame up at least if you filed discovery you would see police had done several things very unusual. This same cop working in prostitution knew about all of this. Or, rather, she knew I was date rape drugged and had death threats. And she sounded all enthusiastic and friendly at first. And then when I explain I also was framed by police, that's when she suddenly gets very cold. That's when she said "they will wait for things to die down and then do something" and that's when she also says she can't do anything in the way of investigation unless I get someone "from the inside" -- aka, one of the perpetrators, to voluntarily agree to come forward and back me up. And I have to be the one to convince them to agree to come forward. It's not like they will lift a finger to do stuff like monitor them for drugs, catch them, and then use drug charges as leverage to force them to testify. 

Someone else also told me online how, with regard to killing me, yeah they won't do that now, "too many questions will be asked" and others online repeated basically the same consensus. And what ended up later being launched were what looked like attempts to discredit me via fake psych diagnosis, e.g., saying nobody was doing anything to me, I was just crazy. Files were deleted from my computer via computer hacking, and I was made to know about it. It all looked like an eventual death, combined with destruction of evidence, could be planned in the future for me. In one of two ways. Accident or drug overdose. Or being framed, my own attorney corruptly works with the system to suppress exculpatory evidence, and I get sent to prison just long enough to be murdered there in a sneaky manner making it look like a suicide or accident. At this point, if nobody asks questions, it won't go any further. And, I note, there were plenty of questions to be asked with regard to my twin brother's case, and nobody had asked them either, and many individuals had suppressed several efforts on my part to ask them. A cover up of pretty obvious stuff could be very likely if I wasn't alive to prevent one from happening.

But, I should also note, if a lot of what Dana Bogdar and this cop (and other cops and my own attorney) told me was all bullshit, with regard to the mafia and how it works, at least they were all on the same page. Dana Bogdar's pronouncements that the mafia was going to break a lot of people's legs, and it might be mine unless I back off and demonstrate just how much I am not a rat or a snitch, would not have had the same effect but for what that female cop working in prostitution said. "They will wait for things to die down, and THEN they will do it." I'd at least have asked "if they are going to do it, why aren't they doing it already?" Or, I'd have worried about them doing it soon, panicked, and gone to the FBI right away. Well, actually, that's exactly what I tried to do. I tried calling --and the way they behaved. Like they were complicit in all this. And three emails sent to the Boston FBI were simply deleted from my gmail sent folder rather than responded to. I still don't know if the Boston FBI was criminally complicit in all this, or whether computer hacking might have interfered with certain communications and I did not know any better.]

[editted 2 25 pm -- oh yes I remember some of the things some of them said. "The mafia has its own justice system" but "sometimes they throw a bone to the conventional legal system." And a big theme was how they privately punish people who create problems, but then they punish the victim for complaining or even do away with the victim in order to cover it up. Of course, I was hoping to avoid being done away with in the end.]

So the way things get covered up, some cover story gets floated which isn't true. I don't know how many times I've heard people say to me stuff like "there is the story newspapers print, and then there is the real story."

[Added February 2018: People also uniformly agreed, for awhile, that the mafia would be happy to allow the rapists, involuntary druggers, and other criminals who had abused me to be prosecuted, so long as it can be done in some way that covers up complicity of the mafia. And, yes the mafia would like the idea of making a deal with me that allows prosecution of criminals who committed crimes against me, that halfway covered up things and insulated them from culpability. But, in order to get lots of people to change their stories, all in exactly the right way -- so they testify to the same agreed-upon story -- the mafia will insist on breaking people's legs, and etc. etc. etc., just to ensure compliance with the same story or narrative. But they might agree not to do that to me, if I seem sufficiently complaint or enthusiastic about working with the mafia, absent such intimidation, so as to make it not necessary to do it to me. And, especially, if they meet me, get to know me, and like me. Nobody quite told me to say it, but it became obvious to me that saying "oh I would never want to inform on the mafia, because I just want to be able to party and do drugs" was a very safe thing to say. They definitely do not worry about drug addicts. They know they can trust them. I should also note, around this time, all of these conversations seem to have been monitored electronically, and what happened for awhile was, even my plans to have this kind of half cover up became the subject of intimidation. I had already had drugs planted on me, and Rockport police started routinely following me or otherwise doing strange things every time I talked about such a thing, until I changed my tune and said I want no criminal prosecution whatsoever, I want everything covered up. And then, once I changed my position that way, they stopped the covert harassment. The problem being, my attorney had promised to handle things corruptly, if I were framed again, I could be sent to jail long enough to be murdered there. I am not sure it is possible to prove they really harassed me that way, though around that time Rockport was building this extravagant $20 million arts center. Let's just say, A LOT of money was pouring into Rockport then.....

Due to the criminal charges including many items where cops engaged in blatant wrong doing and framing of me, and the fact that my defense attorney was uncooperative and indicated to me that embarrassing the system would compromise his career as judges would, in the future, punish his future clients if he embarrassed them, I continued with the "I want to cover everything up" mantra, until the charges were adjudicated and eventually dismissed. After they were dismissed I did tell my criminal attorney that I wanted to get these individuals in trouble, who perpetrated these crimes against me, and he told me that doing such a thing would be a waste of time and I should just go back to Harvard instead. By this time I had Brian Bixby as attorney. I wonder if he got the feds involved to monitor the situation even while playing along with Brian Roman's suggestion. In the end, I start agreeing to go back to Harvard, and at some point, after having enough positive conversations with people at Harvard, I sort of thought maybe I have more courage with regard to the whole issue of criminal prosecution, and proposed again, or rather simply bowed to reality: there had to be some kind of criminal prosecution of SOME people who criminally harmed me. But, I'll agree to protect Harvard's reputation and change my story in all sorts of ways with regard to Harvard, if they stop blocking such a thing. Basically, instead of making a deal with the mafia to cover up mafia stuff, in return for them giving the go ahead for criminal prosecution of a bunch of low lines, I'd agree to make a deal with Harvard to protect Harvard's reputation, and they'd allow even parts of the mafia that didn't include them to be exposed to criminal prosecution.

My understanding of the situation then, still, was that the FBI and police routinely engaged in absolute blatantly selective enforcement, politically protecting certain criminals, and if I didn't respect that and tried to get them to do what they wouldn't do (aka prosecuting certain crimes which they deem off limits due to political reasons rather than the underlying facts of the case), then I'd be victim of not only more framings, but possibly broken legs as well. Their handling of Whitey Bulger, I should note, was something I was made aware of. The Boston FBI arranged for an informant against Whitey Bulger to be killed for trying to come forward about him. Everything about this crime was perpetrated with Whitey Bulger in mind, with this man stalking me online for ages claiming to be rich and powerful and, over the phone, claiming to be a Whitey Bulger type. 

But if I respect those political considerations, in particular respect Harvard's right to be free from harm to its reputation, I was made to understand I could get a lot of stuff done, vis-a-vis the criminal prosecution angle. Of course, everyone would have to agree to consistently testify in a manner that was "on the same page" as the official cover story the police and FBI force everyone to agree upon, so my assumption was in order to make sure people know they are really serious about the whole thing, and that people don't mess up and accidentally tell stories that contradict, they arrange for criminals within the mafia kill some people and maybe just beat up other people and break other people's legs. Which, to be honest, could very well be true. I mean, it was true with Whitey Bulger. And then, of course, there were some very scary ways in which I was intimidated many times by things crooked cops and others did on the streets, which in the end wouldn't leave much evidence or proof -- aside from how scared and intimidated I was. But notice how the desire for a criminal prosecution as a victim of rape and other crimes starts to lead to a victim looking like he is trying to involve himself in terrorist plots. Or, at the very least, leads to the victim looking dangerous in some way, particularly if they try to just iron it all out by arguing that I just have some kind of mental health issue, and thereby a whole group of individuals can be exonerated of a whole elaborately plotted criminal scheme. ]

The problems with that scenario I felt were, how could it have been possible to partly cover up a whole series of crimes that were that many crimes, went on for such a long time, and were too long and involved? A half cover up didn't seem too plausible for me -- except my understanding was, if I couldn't somehow "swing" that, it would be all covered up, and in a manner that was to my detriment. So, in face of uncooperative police, I felt that "proposing" such a thing (at other's prompting) would give me a ray of hope. 

Meanwhile, there were quite a number of individuals, rather respectable and high profile, who were attempting to convince me that this was how the system worked, and while I did sort of vaguely see there were problems with that whole scenario, I was at that time feeling very intimidated and I felt like I needed to give lipservice to "agreeing" to be cooperative with such a thing and even WANTING to cover it all up.

The end result was, I ended up feeling like I really wanted to get so I could talk to people who would work with me to DEVISE a cover story that would be plausible and not preposterous on its face. This would be something I would have been especially eager to work on quickly, so as to not be one of those who ends up getting killed for saying the wrong thing. 

Then, around this time, Pete from Cape Cod -- who had been regularly sending me a lot of very scary threatening text messages -- told me that I was going to fail at this and would inevitably "sing like a canary and get whacked." Negative feedback from him, and other gay men, made me decide to put up an effort to SHOW I could do a good job of covering things up. And I was regularly talking to Yuko Hayashi and David Illingworth at the time as well. And they were on the same page as well. As was my attorney, or so it seemed. 

I do recall Yuko being diagnosed with memory problems and taken to an assisted living center, but I don't think she had memory problems. Furthermore, she was also pretty angry about it and said a few things to me, rather subtly, to indicate so and indicate that her memory was perfect. After James David Christie says something about her having Alzheimers -- which I didn't think she had -- I either told her or she found out somehow he had told me that, and she ended up having a few conversations with me where she went out of her way to recall lots of details from the past, like when I was playing at Old West Church, very accurately and precisely.

However, I do realize diagnosing her with memory problems allows for a corrupt system to then say she is incapable of testifying as to what she was telling me, or the direction in which she was encouraging me, and would also make it tougher for me to -- ok I was telling everyone that I'm willing to "work things out with the mafia" and that Yuko Hayashi was giving me lots of advice about the matter and really helping me with it. Which she was, but diagnose her with memory problems and Alzheimers, and then you can totally erase her contribution to the whole matter. 

In any case, what I remember was, trying to do my best, in conversations with people, to prove I could be discreet about the past and "not talk about the mafia." However, one thing I notice was, in a lot of conversations I had with people around that time, they went out of their way to "put me on the spot" so that they'd end up asking me questions that inevitably led to me not knowing what to say, in place of the truth, and I'd screw up and try to say something that was a "cover up" I'd figured out really fast on the spot, and I'd stumble and it just wasn't something that was plausible. 

What I do remember was Yuko Hayashi telling me I needed to be patient and it would take me awhile to find someone I could trust who could or would help me to get this sort of stuff right. In any case, what I wonder was, was this an elaborate manipulation? And then the moment I go along with it and put up a show of being "cooperative," then they can sort of do a "gotcha" thing?

Of course, if I've been brainwashed into trying to put on a show of going along with a cover up, that's when they can deploy all sorts of undercover officers to at the very least figure out some way to discredit me in out of context ways. Though, that's the thing, if you saw EVERYTHING these people were telling me, it was obvious THESE PEOPLE were insisting on stuff and I felt backed into a corner and felt like, to buy time I should temporarily give lipservice to agreeing to be cooperative with such a thing. 

Which, of course, is precisely what you SHOULD DO until and unless you get police agreeing to officially put you under protection. Or, absent that, until and unless you are able to upload some of the proof you have showing you were a victim of all sorts of crimes onto the internet and alert the whole entire media and online community to it -- so that a cover up becomes impossible, and people give up on the notion of covering it up using crooked cops willing to commit or collude in crimes. Of course, if you look at my comment history online, I think it's pretty obvious I was quite intimidated at first, and then gradually started opening up more and more. 

Here's the thing. If police aren't willing to protect you and leave you open to being a crime victim. And that's the thing. Right when this was all going on I was being the victim of false insurance claims as well as had my apartment broken into and TV stolen, and I lived on the first floor. They were obviously not protecting me, and criminals were obviously not leaving me alone but going out of their way to behave in a manner that proved that police weren't protecting me -- because, after all, the criminals who stole my TV even left a fingerprint on the window, which cops refused to lift. And the false insurance claim involved a neighbor claiming that a fence which had been deteriorating for years had been hit by my car when it was obvious it hadn't been -- and the cop yelled at me and refused to come look at it. The end result was, it was obvious I was not only not being protected by cops, but cops were letting criminals know it was still open season on me and they could get away with doing things to me, and this meant that my only hope was to go along with giving lipservice to agreeing to "work everything out with the mafia" and agree to cover things up. Until I got police protection, and as long as people did things that indicated I was in danger, of course I felt like I had to say whatever was necessary to mollify criminals.

Of course, eventually I start telling my story and opening up, little by little, about certain details I previously thought had to be covered up. And I was practicing the organ at Harvard then. Where police COULD kick me out or subtly have a problem with me or engage in subtle intimidating behavior, the moment I disclose the wrong information that offends the wrong political interests. And, they kept not doing that. And I kept telling more and more of my story, kept going to campus to practice and see if anything happened, and they kept not bothering me in response to what I said, until I eventually opened up about the whole thing and nothing was covered up. 

----

As you can see here. But it took such a long time for me to get over all of that. But you can see that from an exchange between me and Sandy Selesky, former building manager of Busch Hall. My response was July 23 2015. 

Happy Holidays

Inbox

x

Sandy Selesky <sandyselesky@gmail.com>

12/23/14

to me

 

Hi Damian,

I just wanted to send you a quick note to wishyou a very happy Holiday Season and Happy New Year.  I hope all is going well for you and that you've been doing lots of hiking.  I also hope that you will soon be able to get back to Harvard (if you haven't already) to finish your degree.  Are you still able to play the organ at one of the Boston churches?  Areyou still livingpart time in Rockport?  I've been keeping very busy in my retirement and am enjoying it more and more.   However, right now I have a cold which is never fun.

 

Anyway, I send my best wishes to you for a very Happy and healthy 2015.

Take care,

Sandy

Damian Schloming <dmschlom@gmail.com>

Jul 23

to me

I did a lot of kayaking at Lake Winnipesaukee in New Hampshire this past summer, and I took up skiing and have rented a studio in Lincoln NH near Mt Loon so I can ski there more often. And since that's near where the lake is, I can keep it over the summer and it's just as cheap as camping at the lake was. 

 

I have also been working out at the gym and getting in much better shape. 

 

At Memorial Church they have been letting me practice on the Fisk organ some. However, I do have a sore upper back which I need to be careful of when I play the organ, so I might cut back on that for awhile, but that is perfectly timed given that it is ski season now anyway. 

 

As for returning to Harvard to get my degree, I am realizing, the main reason why I have engaged in a "process" whereby I say I want to finish Harvard and get my degree was because of a huge amount of pressure I received from two lawyers I hired, due to a legal situation I was in where I was date rape drugged, raped, and had a number of other crimes committed against me, even while police officers first stonewalled me, refused to do police reports, refused to allow me to submit evidence, and then tried to frame me on false charges and participate in a number of campaigns to attempt to intimidate me. 

 

One of these incidents involved the Harvard police. I was date rape drugged and, while under the influence of a date rape drug, driven by someone I don't know to the Harvard campus, where I wandered around, ended up visiting the computer center and wrote some emails to people (which are still on my gmail account) that would tend to corroborate I was under the influence of some kind of drug that affected my vision and my coordination. 

 

I had an encounter with Harvard police and ended up getting a Taxi ride home, however that encounter with the Harvard police was one which, if not rectified, would make me not want to return to Harvard -- unless browbeaten and threatened by attorneys and others into pretending to want to. When combined with a pattern of death threats and police harassment, the end result is me obediently cooperating with a process where I put on an act of pretending to want to go back to Harvard, and pretending to be wanting to "prove" myself to them (as if been caught engaging in bad behavior and trying to attone), which looks a lot like a process whereby I have been bullied into covering up the wrong doings and crimes of others in a manner detrimental to myself. Simultaneously, my lawyers and tons of other people told me, at all costs, I had to cover up everything that happened to me, which I was doing somewhat, in my conversations with the dean. I must not "talk about the mafia," according to my attorney. 

 

I have recently begun to participate in many social media and journalistic sites with comments section, particularly those which cover issues pertaining to rape. Now I tend to be appalled at how much these feminists want to redefine rape so as to focus all of their attention on trivial stuff which ought not to be considered rape. In part, what's appalling is how this focus on trivial annoyances some women suffer seems to combine with an utter indifference to the plight of those who have suffered from serious crimes, such as what I suffered from. Almost like, they want to narcissistically glorify the minor annoyances of upper class white women even while excluding from their focus any kind of crime that borders on serious -- which automatically does not fit their snobby world view because any kind of rape (or other form of abuse) which is too serious is "the sort of thing that happens to black girls" or other members of the "unwashed masses" and totally "not a good fit" for them and their narcissistic "sympathy and compassion" and "oh isn't it terrible the way women have it so hard" campaigns. But, at the very least, reading these sites and participating in commenting on them helped me understand just how badly brainwashed I have been, both at the hands of lawyers, "friends" and Harvard officials I have been dealing with on the matter. 

 

There is absolutely no way I want to go back to Harvard, unless they can prove - to my satisfaction - they are not a criminal institution. And, frankly, this behavior which I have suffered from is about as low class as anyone can possibly get and a disgrace. Furthermore, I told the Dean I was dealing with that I had been date rape drugged, and also that I had plenty of proof that would corroborate my side of the story. Though, at the time I was pretty obviously scared to accuse the Harvard Police of misconduct. But this was largely because of how many times I was told that simply pointing out unethical behavior (no matter how obvious) of police would result in me getting killed or other unpleasant things happening to me. 

 

In any case, the dean basically told me I would not be allowed to see any report by the Harvard police -- almost certainly fraudulent and probably accusing me of any numbers of bad behavior -- they would have done after that encounter. And she also made it clear, I was not welcome to submit any proof that I was raped/date rape drugged, or the victim of any other kind of wrong-doing by several police forces, all as part of a campaign to intimidation following the rape/date rape drugging. 

 

Well, first of all, it can't be covered up anymore. Because I have participated in many sites and disclosed what happened to me -- along with plenty of documentary proof I could not have faked -- so the position of my attorneys, seemingly echoed by Harvard, that I am to simply "just cover it all up" really is untenable now. 

 

Meanwhile, I presume, the way it all works, of course of utmost importance is Harvard's not being seen as the type of institution that would treat victims of serious crimes insensitively. But, of course, because they're Harvard, all responsibility is on me to ensure they aren't seen that way -- even while zero responsibility is on them to not be that way. So what am I supposed to do? Pretend not to be bothered? Put up a really good act so it looks like Harvard is behaving properly? Even while they do not fail to continue bullying me? Since it would appear, their only solution to having dealt with a situation by abusing someone appears to be: more abuse. 

 

-------

Of course, by now, you have me as a person who was tampered with so badly as a witness, it is hard to bring charges against the perpetrators in this matter. That, I do believe, was exactly the point. Though, why did so many individuals complicit in all this abuse get blackmailed and used as guinea pigs for medical experiments? Hmmmmmm, I wonder if the Boston Bombing created a cut and dried situation making them easy targets for blackmail. Even while everything before that is murky and the system that was responsible for perpetrating all this intimidation against me in the first place -- knowingly doing so in anticipation of a potential terrorist plot -- was sneaky enough so individuals within not only can get away with it but might even be rewarded by the same corporations profiting off this medical experimentation. (Which, I note, saves vast amounts of money, when done on criminals who won't sue should anything go wrong.) 

 

Notice how, later on, it looks like Harvard was predicting terrorism in connection with my situation several years prior to the Boston Bombing. I really do think there is a problem with organized crime here, and corporate profit is the motive. And academia and high level elite institutions are complicit, and they are more complicit than institutions with less reputation and money, and it is their complicity with such violence that gives them the means to perpetrate the kinds of intimidation that makes involuntary human experimentation possible, and this gives them an edge or advantage over their competition, and that's why corporations give them money. Because of the things they can do in return which lead to enormous profits and which can't be done any other way or can't be done elsewhere.  

I want to also note what this implies about academia's obsession with affirmative action. The problem being, why are they so committed to diversity? At least so long as involuntary, Nazi style medical experimentation routinely is promulgated by liberal academia via organized crime and very cleverly covered up, you have to regard their affirmative action programs as suspect. Auschwitz was diverse. It always works better to target minorities because minorities are more convenient to exploit. You don't have to be racist to want to do it. You merely have to be greedy.

Liberal academia can have their hearts bleed and talk all about how compassionate they feel towards the poor and towards minorities, and it's really a terrible situation but they can't do anything about it because doing so will compromise their funding. I note all these Ivy League institutions have been doing fund raising campaigns, lots of it to engineering of exactly the nature that encompasses the medical experiments I've personally witnessed on some people. If Harvard had abstained, their latest $6 billion in fund raising would have gone to Yale, Columbia, MIT, Brown, Dartmouth, Stanford and all the other institutions. They just can't not do it. And, yes it's unfair, but if they didn't do the bulk of it to minorities and socially marginalized individuals, they'd have to find non-minorities to do it to, and they'd complain.  

 

OK here is the reason why I was saying

"Symptoms of my bipolar disorder." 

Reason 1.

One reason I had a big incentive to claim I had bipolar disorder was, having bipolar disorder results in you being able to claim you have "protected status" and people can't discriminate against you AND have to accommodate you in some ways. And that was a whole other issue as well. I knew I was brilliant in math and somehow needed some kind of remedial work or some extra "leg up" to help me "catch up" to other math students who had a far better background than I had, even if less inherent ability, and I felt intimidated by the other students, not sure of myself regarding how to find students I could study with -- in the Harvard Math Department, they said "you just have to find other students to study with" -- and I was too shy. Also I do think I might have suffered from a problem of other students systematically shunning me because in one course not only was I able to find someone to study with but I proved to be so brilliant, a whole study group formed around me, where it was like they were relying on my mind to help them get their problem sets done in time. It was like I hadn't studied the subject matter anymore than they had, yet if you observed the study group, it almost looked like I was a section leader, I figured it out so much faster than all of them and I was spending most of my time explaining to them all. (Sort of like, we'd start to talk about the problem, and then I'd suddenly in a flash just "know" what the answer was, I'd say "oh wait, I KNOW, and then I'd slowly start to explain to them, and they wouldn't get it, so I'd have to explain explain explain slowly and somewhat impatiently, over the course of maybe several minutes, and it was sort of a step by step process because each problem consisted of several steps.) That happened once -- and then in all other math courses I took subsequently, despite a lot of individuals knowing my ability, for some reason I could not find any other students to study with. And, the way my mind worked, I was only good at math when I could talk about it verbally with others. Otherwise, that part of my brain just didn't engage. So, the way it worked, I felt like saying I was bipolar was a "face saving" way to try to convince the Harvard Math Department to figure out some way to accommodate me so I could continue to operate at my full potential, as I had in that one study group. E.g., help make it easier for me to find others to study with. Because, otherwise, they were refusing to and had this "sink or swim" mentality: "You have to find other students to study with, or else." They also knew, it seemed, that my mind was such that I somehow wasn't going to be able to be able to concentrate or learn studying solely on my own. Now I could have explained my "home schooling upbringing" left something to be desired -- but I didn't want to at that time. I instead wanted to say I was bipolar. Meanwhile my grandfather had disinherited my mother and was threatening to bypass her in the will and leave the money directly to me and my twin brothers -- which gave her an incentive to try to get us declared incompetent in order to control the money. That, at least, could be a superficial explanation as to what was going on here.

Reason 2.

I was still living with my parents, and wasn't going to talk about THIS:

Otherwise, I would have said I wasn't bipolar. The only reason I once went to the hospital was I was stuck with my parents, they were behaving like this, and I had to run away from home somehow, get out of there somehow, and I did not have on campus housing at that time, so that was the ONLY WAY. Meanwhile, afterwards, I wasn't going to talk about it to anyone at Harvard UNLESS or UNTIL I got on campus housing. But then the problem was, what precipitated my sending the email to 17 people at Harvard complaining about Murray Somerville and Seth Moulton was my senior tutor and a bunch of people at Harvard giving me all sorts of awful bureaucratic trouble regarding reserving on campus housing. They said I couldn't get on campus housing because I missed a deadline, and when I asked what the deadline was, they said they had no clue. Or, at least, five different bureaucrats had five different contradictory stories regarding which deadline I missed and neither of them knew when it was. 

(From a document my twin brother wrote):

....I went back to the front house. My twin brother was there and he seemed bothered by something. 

 

Apparently, he felt that my mother and father hadn’t been treating him well recently.  The last summer he had gone to Germany for a couple of weeks and after a few days he ran into a group of kids who drugged him and stole some of his money. Apparently they drugged him so severely that when he woke up he could not even remember who he was or where he was.  If the dose he had been given was a little larger, it would have killed him. Anyway, when he returned from Germany, he was apparently very shaken by this experience. He was not same person he was when he left for Germany.  The first day when he returned, his speech was incredibly slow and halting and when he tried to describe his other experiences in Germany he would sometime pause for a long time to remember the word he was trying to say.  When the fall term at Harvard started, he began performing very badly and got into a state of severe agitation.

So finally, I asked my parents to look after him a little and try to help him manage his time.

 

 At first they did well and his performance improved, but my parents are impatient and volatile people and after a while they began pressuring him to do exactly what they told him to do and at first he did and then he began to resist a little and then his performance deteriorated.  They then began to put up more pressure and by then he couldn’t help but resist.  After a month, my father decided to become what he called confrontational along with my mother and that didn’t turn out very well.  I remember coming home once to relax a little.  I was down stairs and I could hear them upstairs being confrontational with him which basically meant screaming at him and calling him names.  I remember being horrified hearing how they treated him. I couldn’t imagine going through being treated like that.  My father was calling him a piece of shit and my mother was screaming at him telling my brother to listen to my father because my brother couldn’t think abstractly according to her.  What was going on was exactly what I feared what might happen.  My parents are volatile people and sometimes they would behave this way in the past when we were younger and they were involved in our lives.  But they became less so when we grew up and were able to take care of ourselves and I thought since my parents were older they had grown out of that phase in their lives.  Still, when I asked them to look after my brother last fall, I specifically told them not to make the mistake of becoming overbearing like they were in the past and not to get over controlling and telling him every little think to do.  I said that the danger of them becoming involved in managing his time was that they would do exactly that and that they would have to risk the tendency they had of getting out of control.  I said this was important because my brother was in a fragile state of mind and he probably couldn’t take it.  They agreed with me completely and at first they were good and I thought that it would work out. Unfortunately as time went on they regressed back to being their former selves.  When I talked to my brother the next day, he was in terrible shape mentally.  Finally, after a week of my parents being confrontational with him, he collapsed and had to be taken to the hospital and have his whole semester and whole year at Harvard whiped out. 

 

This was very hard on him because he had always been successful.  When he was young he began playing the organ and was a prodigy.  Today he is probably the best organist of his generation.  And so he was the one who was always treated very well and who was the big success. In fact when we were younger, it was me who was the defective one. I was the one who had the speech disability. I was the one who had trouble in school. So by the time of my Federal Reserve interview, he was living at home recovering from his hospital ordeal. And at this time, our positions were reversed.  I was the one who was successful academically.  I was the one who got flown down to the Federal Reserve and that night I was returning after a very good time at the Federal Reserve in a very good looking suit with a beautiful Gianni Versace tie.  Now it was my brother who was the one who was defective.

 

Apparently, my mother wasn’t treating him well and I knew she wasn’t treating him very well because I remember how I was treated when I was in a similar position.  So as soon as I got in the house, I was telling everyone everything that was happening and then I went up to him and started telling him the good things that happened.  But he was sitting on the sofa now and with his head down and he looked like he was in a catatonic state.  Regardless of what I said to him, his face didn’t change expression and he just gave one syllable replies in a monotone voice. He sounded the same way people with downs syndrome sound. He was abnormally unresponsive not like his normal self that I used to remember during the days when things were going well for him.  Anyway, after a while, he began saying things, complaining about how he was being treated.  I actually didn’t hear what he was saying but I knew he was saying something on the lines of what he was actually saying because of the way my mother snapped back at him and the way my father started to lecture at him.  Anyway, I took him by the arm and tried to get him out of the room to talk to him but he wouldn’t leave the room. So finally my parents decided to go upstairs instead.

 

 I told him that there was really nothing wrong with him and that my parents were not right: things were not his fault.  I said that they had treated me the same way when I was in a similar position and that it was not natural how they were treating him.  He then told me things about how they treated him.  Apparently on our birthday, my mother told him that his birthday present was not getting thrown out of the house.  Apparently they had been treating him like this ever since he got out of the hospital saying it was all his fault for him having to go to the hospital.

I talked with my brother all night about what was happening to him and he told me about a lot of things I didn’t know about.  The next day, Damian went over to my grand parents and spent the night there.  I slept Saturday night May 20th but then on Sunday night I again spent the whole night talking with my brother again.

For the whole weekend, I spent most of the time talking to my brother and talking to my Grandparents about what was going on with my brother and I forgot all about the Federal Reserve and in fact I felt very unhappy about the whole situation.

-------

Now I ought to point out, my parents have later explained, in somewhat vague terms (this is "conspiracy theory" material) that they had to do this and other things, because Lucas and I were in danger of being killed otherwise. And subsequent events do tend to provide a great deal of support to such claims. And I do remember, at the time, my mother basically continuing to maintain that Harvard was doing was terrible, that they want to cover things up, even while she was behaving in a manner seemingly that amounted to aiding and abetting Harvard in a lot of ways. E.g., a lot of seemingly contradictory and inconsistent behavior. 

Furthermore, the fact that this sort of thing goes on can be surmised from merely reading certain things Hannah Ahrendt says about totalitarian regimes, wherein they are not content to rely on traditional state means but have figured out a way of terrorizing people from within. And she also goes onto say this is not plain old gangsterism but, in particular, it's American Style Gangsterism, which was exported to Germany after World War I. E.g., the mafia is used, and parents get word through the mafia that they are to engage in behavior with respect to their own children which is incriminating in some way, or else the children will be killed, and once they have complied, they then can be perpetually blackmailed. 

Here is another email I wrote which gives a sense as to the aftermath

Now I need to point out I am not really bipolar. I was, at the time, trying to insist I was and, at some point, I ought to go post some emails which tend to show that. But, that's irrelevant -- even if I were bipolar, that doesn't detract from what they did.

[Additional clarification regarding "bipolar." 2/25/2017. When I was at Harvard, it was a very confusing situation because my identical twin brother, Lucas, gets diagnosed with "a classic case of bipolar disorder" at McLeans Hospital by one Jeffrey Gilbert, except that everything Gilbert said flatly contradicted what the female doctors previously said, which was it was either Schizophrenia or Schizo-affective disorder. Because "his thoughts were disorganized." Except they weren't. He had suffered a VERY deprived background growing up preventing him from getting any chance to learn how to talk right, he was home-schooled, an MRI showed cerebral atrophy consistent with either shaken baby syndrome or oxygen starvation at birth, so his thoughts weren't disorganized, he just couldn't articulate himself well. Meanwhile, his hospitalization was done to prevent him from or in response to him TALKING about his horribly deprived past and upbringing. Oddly enough, it seems to have been well known among people with connections to, for want of a better word "the mafia" that his problems were related to delayed speech development. Lynn Robinson even mentioned it, how did she know, pray tell? I note, for doctors at McLeans to initially "misunderstand" and think a developmental speech deficit might have been schizophrenia amounted to blackmailing my parents for the visible products of their neglectful upbringing, so that then Dr. Gilbert could say "it was a classic case of bipolar disorder" totally in contradiction to the facts, and then say he was genetic, so I must have it too (no need to even talk to me) and, even worse, Grandpa's belligerent behavior towards my mother and threats to disinherit her and bypass her in the Will then also caused him to suddenly qualify for a bipolar diagnosis as well. Amid all this, no doctor at Harvard or anywhere else ever gave me a meaningful description of what bipolar disorder was, enough for me to know and understand the definition of the illness. But I was, of course, pressured and or manipulated into claiming I was. You'll note a hint of brain-washing in the emails I wrote where I refer to "compromising emails I wrote to Danny Forger while suffering from symptoms of bipolar disorder." You should have seen how he had been treating me, over a very long period of time. ANYONE would have gotten frustrated and sent a few sharp emails in response to that. I probably took way longer than most. I note how calling my normal response to extreme provocation by others "bipolar symptoms" amounted to me being an enabler. In addition to which, I was afraid to be too confrontational and call them on what they did. Meanwhile, they had been dangling over me this whole "temptation" whereby I got the idea in my head that I could somehow pressure them into turning over a new leaf and treat me properly prospectively if I enabled them "a way out" and, rather than confront them on their improper behavior, pretend my prior frustration was "symptoms of bipolar disorder" and thus they would have a face saving excuse to change their behavior even while pretending they hadn't been initially in the wrong.

In any case, I do have to mention, I recall at some point reading about or hearing about actresses or celebrities who really did have bipolar disorder -- and being shocked at the symptoms. I had never heard of anything this before -- despite having spoken to a few doctors for quite some time. Now, of course, Harvard doctors did explain to me I wasn't bipolar -- problem was, they didn't tell me what the definition of bipolar was. And they and others went out of their way to help me understand they were work averse and cheap and Harvard doesn't want to spend too much time on students and Harvard expects a lot from students (aka employees are lazy and work averse) Very manipulative.

I should also report, even now I realize I never really had any meaningful conversation with anyone over what depression was, a key component of bipolar disorder. Other than I remember my mother saying Grandpa USED TO get depressed, and then refer to him being unhappy at how he was treated in his career and would "ruminate" over how other people treated him. Grandpa faithfully would go for walks three times a day at least until he was 99, and never went through any time periods when he stopped doing that. Complaining about mistreatment by others is NOT a symptom of bipolar disorder or depression -- however I was never told what the real symptoms were, and I was always told such complaints or unhappiness with the way others treated me WERE bipolar disorder. Or at least I was encouraged to "agree" that it was -- just to keep the peace.]

[Added February 5, 2018. I'm in a hurry, I note, so I'm not sure how well this flows with what I wrote before as I'm not going to read it too carefully. However, upon thinking and remembering events from then and, also, studying things online, I just wanted to add one more thing. Around the time I was encouraged to think of myself as "bipolar," I was brainwashed by my mother who was working in close communication with this Dr. Gilbert who was very tight with Big Pharma, and had inside ties to huge amounts of corruption good enough so he was able to accurately predict which drugs the FDA was going to approve and approximately when they were going to approve them, predictions which shouldn't have been 100 percent accurate the way they were, absent massive corruption. Well, guess what her definition of "bipolar disorder" was, which I started lobbying Harvard doctors to diagnose me with in 1995 and 1996? First, I should note, around that time I was living in a dorm where I was the only one who didn't have my own room and the ventilation system was such, well, I wonder if Harvard might not have been figuring out some way to cause insomnia via involuntary drugging, as I generally do not suffer from insomnia and there is no reason why I should have suddenly started to then, and desperately wanted a fix for it. I have plenty of evidence of involuntary drugging of the nature I speculate about many years hence from that time, and I'm sorry to say but Harvard is criminal and corrupt enough so it's not something to be ruled out. In any case, wanting to do well amid bad insomnia made me want some kind of pharmaceutical fix, which apparently wasn't going to happen until I got the right diagnosis, and I ended up getting pointers from my mother regarding what to tell Harvard psych docs, when they told me I do not fit the classic symptoms of bipolar disorder so they can't help me. These pointers, it turned out, amounted to explaining that there are various versions of bipolar disorder, including rapid cycling bipolar disorder. Harvard psych docs didn't ever explain to me "well, that alleged diagnosis doesn't exist," however, it turns out it kind of sort of didn't exist then. Around the same time, I was being psychologically abused at Memorial Church and in the Harvard Math Department in a manner so as to cause me to bitterly complain and, of course, those bitter complaints were never assuaged because they never let up with the psychological abuse/torture but only continued to intensify it. It all turns out that, if you combine some of what I said about "ultra rapid cycling bipolar disorder" with my complaints against Memorial Church, only you pretend my complaints were not provoked by bad behavior but were symptoms of bipolar disorder, you get a near exact replica of how Beiderman of Harvard was speculating how "childhood bipolar disorder" manifests itself in kids. And then, I believe later on the "ultra rapid cycling" bipolar diagnosis was invented for adults as well. However, I note, my email account would substantiate the abuse and show ample motive for my complaints. This would keep Harvard vulnerable basically to being perpetually blackmailed over their treatment of me, likely by Big Pharma and Corporate America. And here is where I feel like this shows itself up as similar to what Pope Francis said about the gay network within the Catholic Church compromising it and making it vulnerable to outside influences. I'm sure a bunch of men at Harvard got all kinds of sexual and drug related privilege, in return for setting Harvard up to look guilty as sin and be blackmailed or otherwise find it in its continued interests to increasingly bow to corporate dictates. Anyway, this is important: when I was at Harvard, somehow I was manipulated into believing a version of bipolar existed then that didn't exist. It is almost as if I unwittingly played a role and served as a conduit of communication, from Big Pharma to Dr. Gilbert to my mother to me to Harvard psych docs, which was how corporations influenced Harvard to invent a new version of bipolar disorder.]

--------------------

--------------------

 

This was addressed to Dean Harry Lewis, David Illingworth, and my senior tutor, David Fithian. I also wrote another version to Harry Lewis of Harvard -- and it was over-written with all sorts of typos introduced into it, causing me to start figuring out ways to regularly back up my email account so they couldn't sabotage it in that way. Not only that, but this was the SECOND time I sent this email -- as the first time, most of the email I sent was electronically sabotaged with most of it deleted.

Now I do have to remark that for Harvard to do this -- e.g., electronically alter my emails in various ways -- did help "educate" me as to the need to regularly back everything up and protect myself from hackers, and they knew I was going throughout life meticulously documenting all the crimes various individuals committed against me (though at that point it wasn't clearly a crime, merely bad or suspicious behavior). So it's possible their intentions were not completely bad but merely to "manipulate" me into taking all the necessary precautions I needed to as I documented the criminal behavior to come, which is one of the things responsible for helping me get out of this situation alive. Still, be that as it may, they so far haven't SAID that was what their motive is, and I am still entitled to feel about it the way I feel about it. 

However, one can also interpret things to say, if they had bad intentions and wanted to help corporations use me to blackmail the Catholic Church, etc., this behavior is still consistent with them wanting to make sure I do as good a job of it as possible. However, it is true many of them did hint to me several times about the "internet revolution" which they described in terms of the need for all sorts of things the mainstream media is covering up to be exposed, via the internet, and these hints were consistent with the fact that I am, indeed, alive and telling my story, and also very well versed and very well educated about all the various kinds of corruption there is out there, which the mainstream media is covering up. 

Now, by the way, there was no "relationship" with Murray Somerville beyond dealing with him on the pipe organ. However, it is true a lot of people tried to insist that "it sounds like there was."

 

An additional note. I am certain I did not write the following: 

"I have asked to speak to you. You have refused." The organ ban was instituted, at Busch Hall (I was refusing to even set foot in Memorial Church) and David Fithian told me I would need to meet with Murray Somerville before it could be lifted -- and, of course, they were not going to investigate what I alleged regarding what Murray Somerville and students of the organ society had done to me. And I refused to meet with Murray Somerville. And there was no way I would have asked to meet with him, simply because I had been so traumatized by him in the past that it simply was not an option for me. I simply couldn't meet with him, no matter what. He also never played the organ at Busch Hall anyway, nor did any other of the hostile Memorial Church crowd go to Busch Hall either. I had already been practicing there for over a semester or two and hadn't run into any of them ONCE. So I wanted to be able to practice the organ WITHOUT having to meet with Murray Somerville. I was afraid to meet with him, afraid of more abuse. 

Also, to be honest, I do not feel like I ever wrote that I sent "compromising emails to Danny Forger." One thing you can see from the paper trail is, he did a ton of things like miss appointments, refuse to give me phone numbers I needed in order to do my job, and I'd email him over and over again asking him, and being overly patient with him, so eventually at one point I did write a couple of angry emails showing frustration -- after months of him doing all sorts of provocative things I am ashamed of myself for not standing up for myself with regard to. However, in this case, I might have described the emails I sent as "compromising emails" because I felt some amount of difficulty trying to articulate what Danny Forger had done in the past, and hoped this would spark an investigation where I get to explain in more detail what it was about.

--------

To Murray Somerville,

I am writing because I have a few questions that I would like to be
resolved before I return to Harvard. I have asked to speak to you. You
have refused. Therefore, I am forced to ask you these questions in
writing.

1. Why did you, with the cooperation of Danny Forger, go to Dean Harry
Lewis on or around November of 1998 and attempt to convince him that I was
potentially violent because of my bipolar disorder, knowing you were
telling a deliberate falsehood?

I found out later, from my Senior Tutor, David Fithian, that someone had
complained about me to the office of Harry Lewis. You are the only person
I know who threatened to me that you would do this thing. Harry Lewis
later denied that his office ever received information about me from
anyone, however this denial directly contradicted the words of my Senior
Tutor, David Fithian.

2. Did you or did you not show to others compromising emails I had
written to Danny Forger during a time when I was suffering from some of
the symptoms of bipolar disorder, with the purpose of preying on people's
fears and ignorance surrounding mental illness and prejudicing
Harvard officials against me?

3. How did it come to be that certain accusations of potential violent
behavior surrounding my bipolar disorder were made in November and
December of 1998, and yet I was not even informed of the accusations and
did not have a chance to defend myself against them. 

4. Why, on or around May of 1999, were these same accusations repeated,
but to a larger group of people, and amplified on to the extent that
rumors began circulating that I was so dangerous to Harvard that I might
conceivably perpetrate a second "Littleton Massacre" at Harvard.

5. If these or any other accusations of potential violence by me, were
considered to be true by anyone at Harvard, then why did they serve as a
justification to ban me from practicing at Harvard and to soundly rebuke
me for writing an email making allegations which Harvard has, so far,
refused to investigate? Were these provocative actions designed to
forestall any potential violence or mass-murder on my part from being
realized? Is this Harvard's idea of an appropriate response to a
student faced with such allegations as these?

6. When a student is accused of potential violence, and, later, of
potential mass-murder, how can it be that those making the accusations
failed to do the following things:

a) Why were the police not notified of the potential danger posed to the
Harvard Community?

b) Why was my place of work not notified and warned that I might pose a
danger to one or more of their employees?

c) Why was my family not notified of the danger that I might commit a
violent crime, so they could do everything they could to prevent it from
ever happening in the first place?

d) Why was my psychiatrist not notified of these allegations of potential
violence, and asked either to weigh in or to act accordingly to prevent
this potential violence from being realized.

7. Furthermore, and most disturbingly, how did it come to be that, soon
after warning me that you were going to use emails I had written against
me, you deliberately allowed or encouraged the President of the
Harvard-Radcliffe Organ Society to write emails that seemed deliberately
designed to provoke me into writing more emails that could be used as
evidence against me?

8. On what grounds am I banned from practicing at Busch Hall at Harvard?
On the grounds that I am potentially violent? Since these grounds can be
proven false, and since it can also be proven that these accusations were
intentionally false and malicious, then on what NON-DISCRIMINATORY grounds
am I banned from practicing at Busch Hall at Harvard? Or am I not really
banned? Is this all a hoax? I have never been officially notified of this
in writing, and the reasons I have been given, in justification for this
action, seem to evolve the more time goes by.

9. I am very disappointed with Harvard University, because I believe that
Harvard Officials have allowed Murray Somerville to engage in a secretive,
disingenuous campaign of lies and deceit in order to justify acts of
revenge against me because of the way I broke off our working relationship
and refused to give any more performances because the conditions were
intolerable. In many ways, I believe Murray Somerville is behaving like a
stalker who refuses to accept the fact that the relationship is over and
that I am not going to work for him any more unless conditions
substantially change. Furthermore, I have been inundated with constant
lies, one after the other after the other, by Harvard officials who seem
to be protecting Murray and carrying out his prerogatives. These lies are
insulting to my intelligence and completely disrespectful to me.

10. I demand to be notified of every accusation made against me, and to
have a chance to answer each one under the auspices of a fair, open, and
non-secretive investigatory process. This secretive, behind-the-scenes
manuevering is simply unacceptible. If these accusations are not going to
be made to me under a fair and open process in which I am notified of them
directly and have a chance to respond to them, then I suggest these
accusations be withdrawn and that the ban on my practicing the organ at
Harvard end. However, given the severity of the allegations made against
me, I think the ad-board, or some other investigatory committee, has the
duty to look into them and verify whether or not they are true.

11. I demand that someone from Harvard respond specifically to each and
every issue I have raised in this email. It will be inappropriate and
unacceptible for Harvard to respond by somehow retaliating against me for
writing this email and to label this email "inappropriate" on the grounds
that some of the issues brought up are offensive to some people. People
should be offended, and should respond accordingly. If neither one of you
responds to and addresses my concerns, then I will take my complaints
elsewhere.

Sincerely,

Damian Monello Schloming

 

I also ought to point out

It was after I wrote that letter that I called Murray Somerville up, and instead of being upset, he was glad I wrote it and was gloating at me. He said "that was a mistake -- bad things are going to happen to you now." And I asked him "what bad things?" And he said "I don't know yet -- other people are going to carry them out." 

Meanwhile, in terms of helping to instill "learned helplessness" in me, it was almost like Harvard pounced on that as an opportunity to help teach me to put up with things and not to complain -- a problem I already had. But they used this as an opportunity to make it worse. And, of course, after I drop out of Harvard, the gay community of Boston did the same thing and, eventually, so did the police do the same thing. 

I was steadily conditioned into becoming more and more abnormal in terms of the kind of abuse I could take and the kind of blatent wrong-doing I could suffer from, even while I had proof of it, technically good enough proof to do something in a court of law, yet simultaneously feel totally brainwashed into thinking I could do nothing, could not enforce my rights, and had no choice but to just obey.

Meanwhile, I need to point out, not only did Harvard refuse to investigate my allegations that some kind of "hazing" went on with the organ society, but I later found out they apparently allowed the parents of the two students involved to write letters to Harvard complaining about me somehow, they never told me about these letters or what they said (except Tom Dingman at one point mentioned it in passing, several years after the fact and, by that time, I had gotten into such a passive state of mind that I didn't even bother asking to look at them). 

And then it is as if they punished me for -- for who knows what. They were banning me from practicing the pipe organ at Harvard. At first it was Murray Somerville who was banning me, then they changed their story and said it was really Harry Lewis who was banning me. And they gave no consistent reason from one time to another why. But, considering what their pattern of behavior was, it is possible they may well have been fabricating various accusations of bad behavior against me, not telling me so I would have no opportunity to correct the record, but if they pretend after the fact that they told me, the mere fact that I did not respond to whatever the allegations were can be seen as me "being on the defensive" as it were, I am guessing. 

What precipitated Harvard doing an about face and suddenly I was "bipolar"

This is quite interesting. Indeed, I never thought of it this way before. But, yeah, Harvard was insisting that I wasn't bipolar in the least. Until all of the abuse at Memorial Church became bad enough so I start complaining in writing, and that's when they start insisting I'm bipolar after all. And, of course, they use that as an excuse to refuse to investigate the matter and as an excuse to handle it corruptly in all the various ways they did.

It turned into a situation where I eventually became the victim of multiple crimes yet could not get police to do anything -- and even when I had documentary evidence of what the facts were, they still dismissed me. Sort of like, ok if you are "crazy" maybe they can argue that your eye witness testimony shouldn't be trusted. But they went further than that. Fear of being accused of being crazy made me become very meticulous about DOCUMENTING and making sure I could PROVE what other people were up to with regard to me -- and it was THESE FACTS which they were refusing to respect, refusing to heed, and just behaving criminally with regard to the situation. It was all a "we're powerful, we can get away with it" situation. With the accusation that I was crazy sort of like a fig leaf and a rumor they could spread which amounted also to a declaration of open season on me. In the sense that it was like spreading a rumor to all the criminals out there that they can do anything they want to me, cover it up by accusing me of being crazy, and I won't be believed. After all, if anyone says I'm not crazy but am truthful and credible when I report bad things that others did to me, that would mean I am not only truthful about what some criminal did to me down the road, but I also must be telling the truth about what various students and administrators did to me while at Harvard, which would be scandalous and bad for Harvard's reputation. So the only way for Harvard to protect its reputation is to pretend I always lie and "imagine" people are committing crimes against me because I am "crazy." 

Harvard didn't do anything bad to me in the four years before 1998, and nobody did anything bad since, and nobody committed any crime or series of crimes against me after I dropped out of Harvard. I wasn't raped, I only imagined I was raped because I was hallucinating being raped. Etc. etc. etc. Everything I say anyone did -- I am not to be believed. And, of course, the whole gay community needs to know this, this rumor needs to be spread far and wide to "warn" everyone about me.

Like here:

http://www.pbase.com/damian1974/jpboy_about_justin_who_was_then_age_23_but

And, of course, no one will use this as an excuse to take advantage of me and commit any crime against me, full well aware of the reputation that I am "crazy" and make things up, of course. Right? The gay community isn't like that, now, is it? They will, of course, treat me fine -- and if I think anyone did anything rotten to me, well that's just proof I'm crazy. If I think I was raped -- no I wasn't. I just hallucinated it all. Right?

I also note, I think it is important for me to post this because it is a documented version of what so many feminists like Naomi Wolf and Catharine MacKinnon seem to be hinting to, seem to be hinting that something very similar happened to them at Yale, and is a form of systematic abuse that is very common. Also, the Boston Area Rape Crisis Center also told me as much -- that they refer to this as "ritual abuse" and it's common and happens to a lot of people, and they know it well.

E.g., classic rape culture, classic "sexual harassment" culture. Even though the complaints were of harassment and bullying which technically could not be "pinned down" to having been of a sexual nature. Which doesn't matter, though, because basically this is a pattern of harassment that is very common in Universities like Harvard, it is pre-meditated, systematic, everyone who works in these Universities is taught how to be perpetrators of it, nobody is allowed in any kind of position of power unless they "go along with the crowd" and "follow the rules" in a sense.

In addition, I can muster up a lot of evidence that everything I write about in this letter, or refer to in this letter, e.g., the abusive incidences that I describe, were pre-meditated and planned long in advance. E.g., this is just a "system" where some people who get admitted to these universities are going to have atrocities committed against them, the fact that some are "made an example of" helping to ensure "discipline" amongst all other students who know about it, who participate in such abuse, and who both fear being honest lest they become victims, fear refraining from joining in on it lest they become victims, and once they become perpetrators, they are "owned" in a sense -- they have participated in things so immoral and horrific, they have "discipline" and can be trusted to go through life fearing exposure, and can be guaranteed to permanently follow the orders of all those who promise to protect them from criminal accountability.

Notice how Seth Moulton is now a politician. However, what is also interesting is how there are articles out there that discuss the very poor quality of his medical care, along with him having "volunteered" himself up to be a guinea pig.

Let me copy and paste a couple of links:

Seth Moulton recent medical care:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2015/06/04/representative-seth-moulton-ordeal-veterans-administration-health-system-spurs-his-first-legislation/O30mN70YGgeKNEhL9BMeXI/story.html

dmschlom post on A Voice For Men regarding the issue of men being used as guinea pigs after being blackmailed over abusive actions that include rape and other stuff.

http://forums.avoiceformen.com/showthread.php?15592-Need-local-guinea-pigs-2011-Iraq-withdrawal-precipitated-campus-rape-movement

So I need to feel the confidence to post this email exchange, yet I am afraid because it was writing this that caused me to have all these horrible crimes committed against me over and over and over again over the course of over a decade. And caused Harvard to ... well there is a number of things they did.

One thing I need to point out is, notice how Seth Moulton tries to pretend that the December 10, 1998 concert was never planned? And that the December 3 one was always going to be the organ society concert? I used to have a program from two prior concerts, one given by Nancy Granert (the last concert she gave at Busch Hall before she left as organist of Memorial Church) which shows "December 10, Harvard Organ Society" and "December 3, TBA." [Editted: And there was a previous program earlier than Nancy Granert's concert, which also listed the same thing.]

So he was lying all along. Meanwhile, all you could accuse me of is over-reacting to the game he played and getting "too afraid" -- except you can't accuse me of over reacting if you understand this was the culmination of years of abuse and weird behavior by people at Memorial Church. Meanwhile, I think what happened to me after I reported all this is proof, I wasn't paranoid. The multiple rapes, murder attempts, etc. etc. etc., that subsequently occurred prove, if I was very freaked out by this, I was right.

Oh and another thing. Is what I said about Gomes and his fake accent, is that a violation of political correctness? Nobody brought that up to me at the time, but in my mind it isn't. Yeah he is black but I took lessons from Marion Anderson (a man) at Bates College (where Gomes went) and he and other individuals at Bates College have the same preppy accent, and I was used to hearing my mother make fun of it or mention it. Meanwhile, I could only have known the accent was fake because, while there were tons of things Nancy Granert and Murray Somerville COULD have told me about Gomes (at the time, we had very similar politics and would have really hit it off in lots of ways if we had ever talked about politics, yet I had no clue what his politics were, had no clue Dan Sanks was his lover, that's how much I was kept in the dark) the few things they DID tell me about Gomes was how his accent was definitely fake because his mother doesn't speak that way, and something about his involvement in the Mayflower society.

--------

 

OK here goes:

 

[To 17 people at Harvard]:

 

--------------

To all of you whom this letter is not addressed, let me explain this
letter is addressed to a former teacher of mine in the pipe organ whose
relationship with me has, let us say, been comprimised since any problems
I have had with Murray Somerville have been communicated, without any
sense of honor on the part of Murray, and without any chance for defense
on my part. Unfortunately, I cannot continue to tolerate the slander of me
that continually follows each time Murray treats me in a way he regrets
and feels ashamed of later. Since some of you include several worms
accociated with Memorial Church, let me just say that your infantile
behavior looks very much like what it is for people whom you have failed
to bully into pretending that such behavior is heavenly simply because it
takes place within a church.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Bill Porter,

I see you looked away and attempted not to recognize me upon seeing me
Friday. I suppose Murray Somerville has gone on a new rampage of slander
and bad-mouthing me after his latest stab at me, which he no doubt regrets
as he regularly loses control over himself and exercises bad judgment, but
then has to resort to preemptive strikes against his victims, discrediting
them just in case they tell.

I suppose if you choose to believe him, that is fine. I remember telling
you about his scheduling me to play on an injured wrist after having told
him about five times not to, and you telling me he "must have forgotten"
(which, of course, he didn't in the least bit; he was just trying to play
an infantile little game with me). Of course you were his teacher then,
and I realize it was insensitive of me to say anything bad about one of
your students, regardless of whether it risked my long-term career.

Let me just show you the kind of things he does. It is a set of email
messages between me and the President of the Harvard Organ Society, but
Murray was intimately involved in the scheme and, when I went to him to
complain, rather than deny knowledge, he instead complained about an email
I had written to him months ago in which he claims, though I deny, that I
threatened to "go to the press" over other wrongdoings he had committed
that would be particularly humiliating for him if they became public
knowledge. 

I don't want to open a can of worms, but he has hurt me so much, and cost
the family tens of thousands of dollars, and he still seems to be hurting
me by slandering me to other Harvard bureaucrats, like my senior tutor, so
that they will give me a hard time. He just doesn't know when to lay off.
By now, I feel I have no choice but to fight, and use very legal resource
that is at my disposal.

I remember when you took offense when I responded to your question about
how has the organ helped me by saying that, "well, playing the organ at
Memorial Church did help me get a new room when I needed one." I guess you
thought I was putting down the organ, which you are so committed to, but,
honestly, playing the organ at Harvard has been, literally, hell, because
of all the jeallousy and all the horrible ways I have been treated and
scapegoated. 

If I am famous, and I very well may be, and people ask me what was it
like, I will have very little good to say about the organ at Harvard
precisely because my ability at the organ has cost me so much pain and
anguish. Murray Somerville seems to think that, if he treats me bad enough
-- preferably, if he can destroy me -- he can scare me from ever telling
the truth. He doesn't seem to realize that if he wants me to say nice
things about him, he needs to treat me nicely.

Prior to the following set of emails, I had been offered by the President
of the Organ Society, Seth Moulton, to play a concert on December 3rd -- a
concert which had, up til then, been labeled TBA ("to be announced") on
all of the programs except the one a week before Dec 3rd, in which I was
the announced player, and had never been intended to be an "Organ Society"
concert, though Seth lied in his email:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>From dmschlom Harvard Email Tue Dec  8 15:36:31 1998
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 21:19:08 -0500 (EST)
From: Damian Monello Schloming <dmschlom Harvard Email>
To: Seth Moulton <Seth Moulton Harvard Email>
Cc: Damian Schloming <dmschlom Harvard Email>
Subject: Re: Concert Dec Third

Hello, I am definitely in on the December 3rd concert, and I am hoping it
can be announced at tomorrow's concert. I might want to take part in the
announcement, and I will tell you before the concert if I want to say a
few words as well after you announce me as the player. I'm quite excited
about the prospect (of performing) and really want to make this concert
something special -- for me, all the people who like me, and all the
people who like music. Talk to you later.

Sincerely,

Damian M. Schloming

>From Seth Moulton Harvard Email Tue Dec  8 15:36:31 1998
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 02:28:21 -0500 (EST)
From: Seth Moulton <Seth Moulton Harvard Email>
To: Damian Monello Schloming <dmschlom Harvard Email>
Subject: Re: Concert Dec Third


Damian,

I'm sorry that I didn't get to talk to you tonight.  I just arrived back
at my room, and you can see that it's already 1:30 so I don't want to call
your home.  So though I'd like to talk to you in person, let me take this
opportunity to try to clarify a few things and attempt to answer your
questions.

First off, perhaps you misunderstood me when I asked you if you wanted to
play on the third.  I was asking if you wanted to play a piece or two as
part of the "Members of the Organ Society" (not Member) recital in which
Danny, Iris, and I had already planned to play as well.  Now, having said
that, I naturally don't doubt that you could play a marvelous recital
yourself, but the emphasis here is that the organ society is a group of
people, and we would like to give everyone who is able a fair share of the
performance opportunities.  We just recently worked out the spring
schedule, and because so many people (from all over) want to play, we are
already completely booked for recitals, and there certainly won't be
enough openings for Danny, Iris, and me to each give full recitals like
you intend to do on the third.

Now, having said all that (and I hope you're not already upset (: ), it
may all work out that you get to play most of the pieces you intended,
simply because I know that Danny, Iris, and I are all so busy right now.
However, I must stress, that there's no guarantee here; we're simply going
to have to work it out among everyone involved.

Secondly, as far as announcing goes, I think it is best that we just stick
with the customary publicity through the program for our recital.  Let's
be honest here, Damian--If such a wonderful player like Nancy didn't get
a special announcement for her recital, we shouldn't expect one for ours,
right?

I hope this clears up a few things.  I'm sure we can work this out to
everyone's benefit, and hopefully we can do this tomorrow.  Please stop by
Mem. Church when you get a chance.  I will be there at 8:55 if you want to
meet then.  I would like to talk before the program is printed up.  But if
you miss me, perhaps you could talk to Murray; I will relay the relevant
information as I know it to him.

Thanks, Damian.  I hope I haven't ruined your excitement as I can tell you
are hoping to give a marvelous performance.  However, we must remember to
always think of everyone in situations like this, and not just our own
interests.  Talk to you soon!

-Seth

>From Seth Moulton Harvard Email Tue Dec  8 15:36:31 1998
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 09:13:46 -0500 (EST)
From: Seth Moulton <Seth Moulton Harvard Email>
To: Damian Schloming <dmschlom Harvard Email>
Subject: GOOD NEWS!!!


Damian,

After that huge e-mail I wrote last night, I am happy to report that
everything has changed.  I talked to Murray this morning, and he said that
Danny, Iris, and I can all play on the 10th, so you can have the 3rd all
to yourself.  I apologize greatly for any trouble I may have caused you
last night when I was trying to straighten out the situation but probably
made things worse.  I am partly to blame because I forgot that we have
both the 3rd and the 10th to fill.  Murray also said that we can make-up
some special posters for extra publicity!

Hope to see you soon.  Murray and I are both looking forward to the 3rd!

-Seth

>From dmschlom Harvard Email Tue Dec  8 15:36:31 1998
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1998 11:14:37 -0500 (EST)
From: Damian Monello Schloming <dmschlom Harvard Email>
To: Seth Moulton <Seth Moulton Harvard Email>
Cc: Damian Schloming <dmschlom Harvard Email>
Subject: Re: Dec 3rd Performance

Dear Seth,

Regarding the December 3rd Thursday concert, I have decided that I cannot
play it. The whole experience has been too disrupting and disturbing.
First I am told I can play, then I am told I can't, and then I am told I
can. What's next? This see-sawing ambivalence made me lose so much sleep
and study time that it is impossible for me to perform on December 3rd. I
will be happy to perform at some later date if and when this ambivalence
is resolved satisfactorily.

Best wishes,

Damian

>From Seth Moulton Harvard Email Tue Dec  8 15:36:31 1998
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1998 22:28:46 -0500 (EST)
From: Seth Moulton <Seth Moulton Harvard Email>
To: Damian Schloming <dmschlom Harvard Email>
Subject: December 3rd


Dear Damian,

I am upset to hear that you plan to not play on the 3rd, especially after
the effort several people have already made on your behalf in preparation
for it.  The confusion surrounding your playing was unfortunate, and I
have thoroughly expressed my apologies for any part of it which I may have
caused.  But I also think that I clearly explained, both via e-mail and in
person, that you were initially incorrect in assuming that you could have
an entire recital to yourself.  Regardless of whose fault this incorrect
assumption was, I did my best to resolve it to everyone's mutual accord.
That Murray and I were able to work it out so that you could play the full
recital seemed happilly to everyone's, but especially to your, best
interest.  Indeed, it was through Murray's generosity and confidence in
you, which it is only fair to acknowledge has not been a consistently
mutual experience in your relatioship with him over the past year, that we
were able to offer you the opportunity to perform on December 3rd.

Therefore, I find your decision not to perform because of purported
"see-sawing ambivalence" particualry ungrounded.  Additionally, how you
could have lost "so much sleep and study time that it is impossible for me
to perform" between 3am (when the issue was brought to your attention via
e-mail) and later that morning (when it was resolved) is completely beyond
my understanding. Even more, however, I am disturbed because of the
excitement you seemed to show--even after the confusion was resolved (in a
matter of hours)--about playing the recital. As you know, we not only
included you on last Thursday's program, but Murray even made an
uncustomary special announcement about your performing at the beginning of
Ed's recital.

Furthermore, I hope you understand that cancelling a recital date like
this is far from acceptable practice for someone who wishes to be regarded
as a distinguished recitalist.  We would enjoy having you play--after all
we certainly wouldn't have given you an entire recital on short notice if
we didn't--but how can you expect us, or anyone, to make a commitment to
you in the future if you clearly cannot uphold your end of the bargain?

It is my greatest hope that we can discuss this further in person and
resolve it to our mutual agreement and understanding.  If you feel I am
innaccurate in my contentions as outlined above, I am most willing to have
a reasonable discussion to further clarify the situation.  I hope to hear
from you soon.

Very truly yours,

Seth

>From dmschlom Harvard Email Tue Dec  8 15:36:31 1998
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 22:38:41 -0500 (EST)
From: Damian Monello Schloming <dmschlom Harvard Email>
To: Seth Moulton <Seth Moulton Harvard Email>
Cc: Damian Schloming <dmschlom Harvard Email>
Subject: Re: December 3rd Concert

Dear Seth,

I am quite sorry to hear about how upset you have been over my reluctance
to play the December 3rd concert after all the miscommunication. When I
tried to cancel my December 3rd performance in my last email to you, I was
acting under the assumption that you, Danny, Iris, and whoever else, were
all geared up to play that concert anyway, since that was the original
plan, and that you would have no problem allowing me to postpone my
concert to the 10th, given the considerable hardship I was under. I never
would have even considered canceling if I thought it would cause you
hardship.

If it's really important to you that I play on the December 3rd and the
Organ Society performs on December 10th, rather than that the Organ
Society plays on December 3rd and I play on the 10th, then by all means I
will do so. Of course, I will need to get priority on the Busch Hall
organ, given the short notice. And, of course, I hope I can rely on as
much of your help, and Danny's and Murray's too, as can be spared so as to
contribute to the success of the concert.

Sincerely,

Damian M. Schloming

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unfortunately, Murray and Seth made sure none of customary publicity was
done for my December 3rd concert, so I had to do it. Unfortunately, I have
a condition which prevents me from being able to function while being too
sleep deprived, and attempting to produce a concert that others were
sabotaging did not allow enough time for sleep, so I had to check myself
into a hospital before the concert on December 3rd, and did not end up
giving the concert.

This kind of dishonest, predatory behavior has been perpetrated on other
people by Murray and Seth working together, in which Seth does the work
that Murray would get in trouble doing himself, and vice-versa, and there
are rumors to that effect.

Murray Somerville, by the way, is underqualified for his job and not
handling it very well, and there is a growing discontent among the Harvard
community. Unfortunately, Murray has a temper that has, at times, made me
fear for my physical safety, in addition to other reprisals through his
ability to grant or cut off privileges, and there is a general atmosphere
of fear and wariness among students and other young men who are around
him. 

Murray Somerville is a very dangerous and erratic man. He is having
troubles doing his job, and lives a life that is very much out of control.
He has displayed the most eggregious and shocking aggressive interpersonal
behavior towards me when we are alone together and he can "get away with
it." With older and more prominent people, he will control himself better,
but there have been times when I have come out of meetings with him with
my hands literally shaking. 

He is dangerous because he is irrational and paranoid, and he thinks other
people are out to get him when they aren't. He lashes out at other people
when they are doing nothing to harm him, and mean no harm to him, and
creates more problems for himself and others by doing this. He cannot
continue in his job if he doesn't get help and learn to modify his
behavior. 

He is extremely egotistical, embarassingly so at times, and feels
enormously threatened by my superiority in playing the organ. Yet I cannot
allow myself to feel guilty about my gift at the organ and think I deserve
all the treatment that I have gotten. He has trouble getting along with
other staff members of Memorial Church, and this has resulted,
particularly during the time I was Sub-Organist, in some particularly
eggregious treatment of me by other staff at Memorial Church, in addition
to the spreading of false rumors about me which I have been given no
opportunity to respond to.

In the summer of 1998, I finally attempted to go to Reverend Gomes for
help, and he refused to even talk to me, with his secretary saying, in
Memorial Church jargon, that it was "inappropriate" for me to even ask to
talk with him. The only way I could talk to him about the abuses I had
been subjected to at Memorial Church was to write a letter in which I "had
the burden of proof of proving that what I would say in any conversation
was appropriate" -- in other words, I had to prove that I wouldn't bring
any issues to his attention that might require any responsible action on
his part. I guess someone who spends his time prancing in front of TV
cameras and raises money with fake preppy accents just doesn't have the
time to be a real man of God.

Well, if Murray Somerville is launching pre-emptive strikes against me
because he is afraid I will bring his wrongdoings to public light, and
since he has already retaliated against me just in case I do so, then I
suppose there will be no harm in my actually fulfilling his fantasies of
vengeance on my part and broadcast the contents of this email far and
wide. In any case, I am doing this because I am sick of the rotten
treatment I have received at Harvard and I want people to be taken in to
account for their actions.

Sincerely,

Damian M. Schloming



 

 

More background information

One reason I am not posting the full letter yet is, it has references in it I need to explain away, because this was during a time when I was faking bipolar disorder and had lobbied doctors at UHS mental health to have me declared bipolar. This was because of issues pertaining to my twin brother having suddenly been sent to the hospital and diagnosed "bipolar" at MIT under circumstances I felt were wrong. I felt it was something else that was wrong with him and they were fraudulently misdiagnosing him so I felt that, since we were identical twins, I had this idea that I could eventually figure out some way to get his diagnosis corrected in some way. 

And, one of the issues was, he actually had a speech problem growing up and lots of tics and had lost oxygen at birth, e.g., he probably had a minor case of cerebral palsy which was undiagnosed or which the doctors refused to diagnose -- and I now believe such a refusal by doctors in Boston to acknowledge he was deprived of oxygen at birth and may have had brain damage could have been related to what my parents said regarding how "they" (they never said who "they" were) were interested in using Lucas and me as guinea pigs for medical experiments. 

Some of which, I believe, were to study the effects of neuroleptics on the brain long term. Which is consistent with the fact that, sure enough, both Lucas and I were summoned to Belknap Labs at McLean Hospitals for MRI's, and the women there told me that I was a control and Lucas was not a control. And this was a time when I insisted I was bipolar and told them at the lab I had been diagnosed bipolar (even though I hadn't really been) and they were like "nope, you're not bipolar, you are a control, we are putting you in as a control" like this was what they were declaring ....as if they KNEW what was going to happen to me (e.g., future reversal of diagnosis) before it even happened. 

But, supposedly, Lucas really is bipolar -- well, no, at some point they retroactively rewrote the paper trail and made it all out to be schizophrenia all along. Actually, everything the doctors did means if you look at his medical records, you know they are up to something dishonest as they contradict each other from one time to the next. See, that's a big problem. I can't even SAY any one thing he is diagnosed with since there is no consistency there. There is no consistent reality they will stick to regarding what the symptoms allegedly are with Lucas, let alone what the diagnosis is. 

And, sure enough, Harvard doctors' refusal to diagnose me bipolar like my twin brother, no matter what I told them, does seem consistent with a desire for me to be a long term "control" in a twin studies to determine how much neuroleptics cause brain shrinkage. Along with, everything they did allowed me to be put on Neureleptics for a very short time -- at which time I suddenly start being discriminated against so badly at Harvard for allegedly being "mentally ill" that I start wanting to get the diagnosis reversed. And it was very easy to get the diagnosis reversed and discredit the original diagnosis because, well, actually I wasn't ever diagnosed bipolar. I had to go to McLeans Hospital in order to get out of giving that concert, and they were informed I'd been diagnosed bipolar ages ago even though I wasn't. 

Anyway I ended up getting off all medication and dropping out of Harvard at the same time. And was fine -- other than all the various crimes that were committed against me. In other words, I never had bipolar disorder in the first place. I never had any "episodes" or whatever you call them. However, in order to best discuss this, there is a whole side of the paper trail I ought to dig up here, which shows it all in a very convincing way. And I am uncomfortable fully discussing this issue without doing a presentation showing the back up evidence -- but I do remember that, at the time, even with low self esteem and lacking in confidence, anytime I'd look at the paper trail, I knew it was obvious, any prior claims that I might be bipolar or have any mental problems were transparently bogus. Oh and another thing. They can't say I really am bipolar and am in denial -- things were the exact opposite before. Everyone was telling me before I was obviously not bipolar, it was ridiculous for me to be insisting I am, and I was nevertheless stubbornly insisting I was bipolar and going on a lobbying campaign to try to get myself so diagnosed. So I'll keep on writing this anyway without digging up the paper trail for now. 

[Edited to include another set of facts I had previously left out. You will note in my summary how a bunch of gay men in this chatroom went on a smear campaign to very publicly broadcast rumors that I was "insane" or crazy. Well, when I first started logging into that chatroom, I was kind of brainwashed and insisting I was bipolar. THEY were the ones, several of these gay men in this chatroom, who talked to me about my parents, told me it was obvious I wasn't bipolar and they were doing this all for money, and they were the ones who convinced me to switch doctors and raise the question with the new doctor whether I was really bipolar, Dr. Kim, who was surprisingly open to the notion that I wasn't really bipolar. And, the thing was, it's true I didn't really have any of the symptoms and was going along with such a diagnosis for other reasons than that. But, anyway, what's interesting about these gay men was, they were the ones who spurred me onto get the diagnosis reversed and get off all drugs, move away from my parents and move into my own apartment, all privately so I have no proof of it (I wasn't doing weblogs then) and then, the moment I do, they go on this very shrill hysterical public campaign to "spread the word" that I was really insane, in a matter totally at odds with what they were saying in their private dealings with me. And it is also true, I think they sort of knew something was going to happen to Lucas before it did, because of the ways in which they gloated when the Lauren Bush stalking thing happened and said "we told you so." They also were very openly telling me in the chatroom in front of everyone that "when they get you declared insane, we are going to do a friend of the court brief, testify to everyone how crazy you are." When I was shocked and admonished them about how morally wrong this was, they'd taunt me and say "we don't care" and I remember one of them writing about how wasn't it so funny how naive I was that I actually was trying to explain what the facts were, all because I just didn't understand that they didn't care and it was useless for me to try to defend myself with facts. Something along those lines.]

In any case, back to Lucas. He had a severe speech impediment growing up and still doesn't speak fully normally. He also had lots and lots of tics and twitches, all of which are signs of having been deprived of oxygen at birth. Meanwhile, I think that one can surmise that doctors refusing to diagnose him with cerebral palsy at birth might have then figured that such a refusal to diagnose could later result in my parents being blackmailed into continuing to cover up that Lucas had any problem, simply because they could pretend that such a problem, later discovered, must have been the result of abuse, and then have us taken away and then do the same experiments they wanted to do on us anyway, using a foster family. 

My mother did say, all along with respect to Lucas's alleged "condition," that those who are attempting to diagnose him as schizophrenic are simply "mistaking" his speech condition for schizophrenia. Oh, and not only that, but Lucas had an MRI done on him during his first McLean hospitalization that showed cerebral atrophy. But he also had a broken nose at some point, so it is possible to claim it happened due to subsequent abuse. That is one thing I do know. Threats to accuse parents of abuse are what they do when they want to force parents to surrender up their children to be experimented on as guinea pigs, because usually keeping a child with a parent can result in them suffering a fate that is the lesser of two evils. 

But, to go into my parents' handling of the matter would be very complicated indeed. So I'll just stick to what I did. A big part of why I was able to get the "diagnosis" discredit on my part was the way, first grandpa disinherited my mother, and then they played the part of bad parents, trying to get us diagnosed but writing all these memos (a paper trail I could hold onto) that made them look like really bad parents trying to get their children fraudulently diagnosed so they could gyp us of all the inheritance money, only they went about it in very stupid ways with the different assertions they made at different times full of so many inconsistencies, it was easy for me to maintain that "this was just a fraud, I was never bipolar in the first place, I was only faking bipolar because they were paying the college tuition and I was afraid of having the money cut off and needed to do what they wanted." 

And then, of course, afterwards I then tried to help get Lucas's diagnosis reversed -- and the way the doctors simply refused to let themselves be put in a position where they could see any evidence pretty much showed they were up to something corrupt. They were pretending to a fake reality and wanted to put themselves in a position where, if they were ever accused of wrong doing, they could pretend they didn't know any better. And of course that's when suddenly who knows what went on with Lucas and Lauren Bush, but then I end up being employed at Berkshire Hathaway, the same company where Robert Whitney worked, who was also the head of the Disability Law Center, which was handled Lucas's case very corruptly for a brief period, and then all these bizarre and horrible crimes get committed against me in the process. And the involvement of the Disability Law Center in Lucas's case caused me to share information with and talk to Robert Whitney at Berkshire Hathaway, and it was shortly after I started doing so that I got fired from there and started enduring the campaign of rapes + all sorts of other crimes and abuse. 

So all of this is background information I need to explain, as it explains a lot about the way I handled certain things at Harvard. 

Anyway, the reason why I'm pointing all this out

In the below blog is, based on several hints from a lot of people, which I didn't pick up on at first, but am finally starting to, I am wondering if it is possible maybe some people at Harvard want to smear me by asserting that it was Mr Gomes I always had the problem with, rather than Murray Somerville. Of course, that makes sense too because for them to demand I go "mediate" with an abuser is outrageous so they'd want to cover it up by pretending they had asked me to apologize to and/or meet with Gomes, and I refused to and THAT'S what it was all about. And, if that's what they wanted to do, then yes it would make sense they'd fabricate fake emails between me and Murray that would make it look like I had met with Murray at a time when, actually, the big sticking point was I was so scared of him I wouldn't meet with him, I wanted to meet with others. 

On top of it, Gomes was black, did they want to make it into a political correctness race thing? Except, that's preposterous -- or what is more obvious is how they systematically discouraged me from ever getting to know him, and were very controlling about it too, and were so good at discouraging me from getting to know him that there were all sorts of things I didn't know about him, after several years there, which were shocking to learn. He was a gay Republican who thought out of the box politically (a lot the way I do) and Dan Sanks was his lover -- I had no clue about any of that until four years after I was a freshman. But I did know all about his peculiar membership in the mayflower society along with his preppy accent being fake and his mother speaking normal English. Meanwhile, everything they did can be seen as a pre-meditated effort to have Murray Somerville terrorize me, then have them provoke me into insulting Gomes, and then they tell me only that Murray is offended (at my complaints about his threats and other severely terrorizing wrong-doing) and that I have to meet Murray and placate Murray, something I knew I couldn't do because of how ceding to any of Murray's demands always resulted in me having horrible experiences which severely traumatized me, so I felt compelled to stay away from him in order to avoid trouble. 

Meanwhile, of course Peter Gomes could not breath a word about being "insulted" - nor could anyone else -- lest I end up meeting with him. Or trying to, and he's obligated to maintain his reputation within the church by being magnanimous enough to offer to talk to me, which is what I talked all along. Meanwhile, if they try to say it's a racial thing, I have to point out, I was the only organ student who was friendly with Eric the custodian, who was black, and also I started to befriend Archie Epps, after the big problem started, spoke with him once and really thought he was nice, and next time I tried to speak with him, Phillip Bean tried to tell me I couldn't (without even asking Archie Epps whether he was willing to speak with me) and I was so upset about that I got my mother to go to University Hall with me and object, and I think Phillip Bean ended up being very nice and saying it was ok for me to meet with Archie Epps after all. Which I would have started doing regularly (I later on would regularly visit Sandy Selesky and Eric, the custodian from the gym), except they suddenly retired Archie Epps and that was the only reason I ended up never speaking with him. 

And, of course, it is interesting how Peter Gomes and Eric the Custodian both die suddenly, right after I hire an attorney. [Added later: September 12, 2015: Interestingly enough, one thing I do remember, after my failed efforts to try to try to talk to Archie Epps again was, his sudden retirement was also accompanied by subsequent medical problems so bad, his wife had to donate him a kidney. Which may be a coincidence. And here is where harassment and constant accusations that I'm a conspiracy theorist leave me intimidated and hesitant to say a few things that have been on my mind, or which I've been "covering up," shall I say, but it IS true that, for quite some time, I have been under the impression, based on rumors heard through the grapevine whose credibility, of course, will always be ambiguous, that Peter Gomes' death was conveniently timed and hastened by a corrupt medical system. Which is, let me just say, kind of interesting.]

And, to be honest, I always liked Peter Gomes and always got along with him perfectly, sort of like he was the only person at Memorial Church who was decent and not like the others, sort of honorable unlike all of the others. So it makes sense I'd be upset and say something after his secretary very nastily refused to let me meet with him -- in hopes he'd hear about it finally and wonder what was going on and want to intervene and I'd get a chance to discuss it with him. 

I'll have to copy and paste it eventually but need to dig up more background info on some other issues I also mentioned in that letter first. 

Which I can do later. 

ok oh yes now I remember and understand something more

There are some fake emails that have been added to my Harvard email account, which I never wrote, but which show me somehow emailing Murray Somerville and somehow it looks as if I somehow ended up meeting with him again and somehow writing that "it was all Danny Forger's fault" and having him somehow be the one to arrange for me to practice/play I think first at First Lutheran Church and then Old West Church. Of course, none of that happened. I can't remember who told me about First Lutheran Church but I think it was some organist, I am not sure where, and I practiced there once a week for awhile until the secretary left due to carpal tunnel syndrome.

 

Then after that there were some master classes at Old West Church which I was invited to and, in the process of preparing for the master class, I got to meet Pastor Laurel and I just knew from her personality, this would be someone I could somehow approach with regard to practicing the organ, and she was like, well there was a rapport there, I just knew she wouldn't be like others I'd dealt with before. So I did, but it was around that time that I ceased all contact with David Illingworth and didn't even talk to Sandy Selesky for a very long time, all because I was afraid Murray Somerville and Bill Porter and some of the others at Harvard might find out and try to slander me and wreck things with Old West Church, something I had suspected had gone on at First Lutheran Church. 

The truth is, the last time I ever spoke to Murray Somerville was after I wrote that email and he said "bad things are going to happen to you," and I asked "what bad things?" and he said "I don't know yet -- other people are going to carry them out." In addition to which, if I had REALLY started reestablishing contact with him, I would have continued to maintain contact not only with him but with David Illingworth and even Sandy Selesky. 

Actually, I first noticed that my Harvard email account had been altered and those fake emails had been put in there after I started working at Keller Williams -- or pseudo "working" there. Truth is they didn't LET me do any work and also implied showing houses might be dangerous, particularly realtors have been killed in basements while showing houses. 

However, around this time I had been convinced -- by a few untrustworthy others, one of whom happened to include this Comp Sci student who worked for microsoft -- that the only way to handle things was to "make a deal" to cover things up, or to HALF cover things up. Cover some things up, so some people are held accountable for committing crimes against me (which couldn't be covered up) but then a cover story is floated which preserves Harvard's reputation, and the reputation of other high profile players. 

So the moment I see these fake emails, after all the abuse I'd been through I thought, oh ok, they are agreeing to such a deal, and it was around this time I do believe I started responding by emailing my attorney telling him details about things that went on at Harvard, as well as indications as to how it can all be "interpreted" to either be my fault or the fault of my up bringing or of my parents, but not the fault of anyone at Harvard. Though I do remember I did mention that Murray Somerville really did do things that upset me, but I think I remember proposing maybe we can just say he was an eccentric musician and I can agree to downplay them or figure out how to explain it away. I was overly sensitive, it was a misunderstanding, blah blah blah. 

Oh and I assumed, of course, that any and all involvement of Harvard in the matter would be totally covered up, so the only "cover story" or "explanation" that has to be floated would be why I dropped out of Harvard, what all the problems were. The way my whole approach to the situation was, I was literally telling everyone how grateful I was to have been granted the opportunity to be considered trustworthy enough and smart enough to do a good job of "maintaining the kind of discipline" necessary to permanently cover everything up. Oh well, that's what some of the abuse does to you. 

OK I just realized I need to have a mantra I keep telling myself

And that mantra is:

e interest.

I am not responsible for the way Harvard looks, I am not responsible for helping to maintain Harvard's reputation, I am not responsible for trying to tie myself in knots attempting to interpret things in such a manner so as to be "going easy" on Harvard. I am responsible only for telling the truth and for what the facts are -- e.g., what people actually did. And what I am afraid of is the potential in the future of being helplessly dependent on those who abused me and therefore feeling a need to try to give them "a way out" in a sense, though not through distorting the facts, merely through attempting face saving "interpretations" that allow them not to be embarrassed. 

I'm responsible only for what the truth is and for telling the facts as they are and as they occurred and EXACTLY what happened. And, I'm responsible for the public interest IMPLICATIONS of the things they have done that I know about, as well as the systematic nature of it and the way in which it shines a light on how certain abusive tactics are inflicted on large sectors of the population at large. 

THAT'S what matters, not Harvard's name and Harvard's seeming entitlement to appear to be high minded and all. The only thing that matters is the truth, both about what they did to me and how it affects the PUBLIC INTEREST, not Harvard's private interest. And I need to keep telling myself that over and over and over again and stop letting old habits born of intimidation and brutal campaigns of abuse and threats to cause me to hesitate.

See, what I am terrified about, in the back of my mind, is my life suddenly being in danger again and suddenly needing to do an about face, a quick about face, to save myself. The way it was before. Of course, I am not distorting any facts, it's just the interpretation I am focusing on. But, if they aren't responsible, then who is? And how should an institution be regarded which is one defined by the notion that all sorts of horrible bad things happen there, people there do all sorts of horrible covered-up atrocities, in the name of science, and "it isn't their fault it's always someone else's fault -- they aren't responsible, others are?" 

and Gomes' secretary who refused to let me speak to him

She was especially nasty about it, sort of like deliberately provocative.

OK now I see it. They were deliberately manipulating me. 

As for Gomes, I am reminded of this TV program someone recently shared about Gomes where he was talking about his recent book "the scandalous gospel of Jesus," and the TV host went and told him, if he started out as Catholic, then he is nothing but a sheep and they tell him what to do and he does it, and he said "yes." 

See I really wonder whether he is a bad person like they all said. I do know one thing, nobody breathed a word about him to me while I was at Memorial Church. Nobody introduced him to me, except for my mother of all people which was after I played the organ for a service and would talk to him during refreshments.

But I knew nothing about him, I didn't even know he was gay, I did not know Daniel Sanks was his lover until Spring of 1998. I did not know he was well known in any way. I knew nothing about his politics. All I heard about was how his mother speaks normal English and his preppy accent was fake, how he was a very bizarre individual who was a member of the mayflower society, e.g., descendants of people who came over here on the mayflower, which they thought was so ridiculous and funny, and remarked on how this "old dowager asked him so did you come over on the mayflower" and he responded "no I came over on a different kind of ship." (Direct quote: Murray Somerville.) 

Then, after I leave Harvard, all I hear from the likes of Christopher Thorpe is how intensely disliked Peter Gomes was at Harvard, and what a horrible person he was, all he cares about is talking with people who have money. 

What I wonder about him is, was he really a bad person, or was he just surrounded by and heavily controlled by a bunch of white gays and lesbians (all of whom were the ones who behaved so atrociously towards me) in a similar manner to how many performers who are gifted are used, manipulated, and controlled by "managers?" Given the high profile nature of some of the businesses who seemed to be using this situation in order to eventually exploit me, I'd have to say this wasn't really him, as some people have tried to tell me. 

I mean, come on, these people were all using me. Why weren't they using him as well?

[Added November 14, 2015. I totally forgot it, but another sign of the manner in which I was kept utterly ignorant about everything at Memorial Church, all so I could muddle through and not understand ANY of the social dynamics there was, regarding Daniel Sanks, Gomes' lover. I had no clue Gomes was gay. Well maybe I heard once or twice. But I had no clue Daniel Sanks was his lover until Spring of 1998, I accidentally try to visit Gomes to try to complain about Dan Sanks, I ring his door bell, Dan Sanks answers, I ask where Gomes is, he isn't there, and then I ask Dan Sanks "What are you doing here?" and he says "I live here." And I was shocked. This was after five years at Harvard -- just goes to show how badly I was socially ostracized, controlled, and shunned there, if I didn't know even that. 

However, I should also point out, it isn't like I didn't have some amount of "insight" as to their "relationship" or whatever you want to call it. When speaking to Danny Forger and other Harvard Individuals, I always referred to Daniel Sanks as "Director of Finance" and none of them corrected me. Because what I noticed about him was, he was very controlling, and obsessed with money. He and Nancy Granert would once a year work together at her desk doing the "accounting" -- which wasn't exactly like what you would expect to see at Harvard. She always had tons of $20 dollar bills in her right drawer, probably several thousands of dollars worth, and when they were "doing the accounting" at her office, they'd all piled up on the top of her desk. And what I am writing here is not a hint about something else. It's literally true.]

Thought about it some more

My email account at Harvard has been tampered with, and actually it's obvious from a few other emails it's been tampered with. For instance, a particular email I sent to exactly 17 people, when I opened it recently had, at one time, 22 or 25 recipients instead, and then much later on far more recipients, people I did not send it to. 

I would not have switched the word order from "hands shaking violently" to "violently shaking hands" in my email to Samuel Hayes. I just wouldn't have. Meanwhile, I have to say that this whole email paper trail is quite interesting and, at the same time, I'd have to say indicative of corruption in ways I hadn't thought about before. 

But I need to take my time and first discuss background context and not be in a hurry and certainly I should not be expected to "figure this all out" while being verbally harassed, constantly trolled on line, and gas lighted by several individuals. 

What strikes me as most interesting is, after I wrote the email, David Fithian went and told me that "Murray Somerville was very offended by what you wrote" and was going to ban me from playing the organ until I spoke with him. E.g., I had to "mediate" this whole situation with Murray Somerville. Yet the email I wrote discussed in very credible ways all sorts of things he had done to hurt me, abusive things, and discussed how much I was afraid of him. 

Meanwhile, I had expressed disappointment, somewhat insultingly, with Peter Gomes for refusing to meet with me at a point which was right after Murray Somerville had upset me very much by screaming with me at the top of his lungs. 

Except, it was actually his secretary who blocked me from meeting him, without even consulting him. She told me I cannot meet with him unless I write a letter wherein I somehow will demonstrate that I am not going to talk about any of the various things Memorial Church employees had done that I was upset about. And she told me right away -- without even calling him up or asking him first. 

Now, that's the thing. I don't know how many people from Memorial Church have said really horrible things about Gomes to me over the years since 2000 or so, and prior to that the way certain employees and individuals in the choir behaved towards him behind his back was the exactly opposite of respectful, but he was always nice to me and I always enjoyed talking to him and something about his personality made me believe that, if only I got to talk to him and tell him what the problems were, he'd be able to smooth it all over and mediate the situation. 

And I still thought that when I wrote this letter to about 17 individuals complaining about my problems, which letter was precipitated somewhat by certain treatment I had been subjected to by some Harvard bureaucrats which I think one could understand would upset me. 

What's interesting is, if anyone should have been merely "offended" by the letter, it would have been Gomes. And that was somewhat purposeful, because of course if he was offended, then I'd have to apologize and in the process would presumably have an opportunity to meet with him and explain all the stuff people in the church had been doing to me, which I had assumed he didn't know anything about. 

If he was offended, that was never communicated to me and was a total non-issue among all the people I dealt with at Harvard who never mentioned it once -- the only issue was the accusations of wrong-doing by Murray Somerville et al, which they were refusing to investigate. Or, to be honest, they did say "we don't like the tone of your emails," which I took as "we don't like what you are accusing Murray Somerville of." Or, it was so vague, I didn't know how to interpret it. And, to be honest, it should have been an issue, and the fact that it wasn't was actually rather typical, in terms of the Memorial Church crowd not being exactly too respectful of Peter Gomes, at least in my presence. 

Good example is the way the choir, which then would sit in Appleton Chapel behind a screen, would behave during the sermon. Literally, they'd be all slouching in their seats, yawning, reading books, fanning themselves, taking naps with their mouths open, none of them listening to the sermon at all. I even remember once mentioning it to Murray Somerville in this slightly embarrassed way, and him sort of laughing and saying "it's a good thing there is that screen, it would NOT be good for the congregation to see that." 

It has occurred to me -- and I never thought about it that way before -- that this could have been something in the paper trail they were "saving" to potentially spring on me later in case I complained to individuals outside of Harvard, even while not telling me at the time in order to prevent me from rectifying the situation (which they didn't want fixed, last thing they wanted was for me to get a chance to speak to Peter Gomes as that would have forced them to do the right thing), but they could after the fact all lie on the same page, 15 years later, and pretend it was really Peter Gomes who was offended and Gomes who I was refusing to meet with. 

Except, of course, the paper trail does not mention that in the least and I don't refer to it even once ever. And I would have if they had ever mentioned it. That is one bit of context, but then I need to go over a few other background things as well. At some point I'll just post the whole email exchange. But will take my time with it. 

One thing that was interesting was, David Fithian, and nearly all the others I had problems with, were gay. And even the students from across the hallway who sexually harassed me were supposedly straight yet I do remember the cops telling me they really were gay and just closeted. 

Another interesting thing about Memorial Church was the strict sex segregation regarding the organists. Nancy Granert taught all of the female organ students, Murray Somerville taught all the male organ students, and never the twain shall meet. A more typical situation would be one where students choose which teacher they want and are allowed to go back and forth and learn from both teachers at different times. 

It all began at Harvard, of course

And one thing that was interesting about the way things worked is, it all confirms everything rape activists say about how rape victims are dismissed and retaliated against, only to be honest, in a way it's worse than how they portray it. Colleges want victims to complain, because the complaint becomes, well, becomes the "blackmail leverage" that administrations can then use to encourage the kind of criminal behavior against the victim subsequent to the rape that various individuals would probably be hesitant to engage in on their own. However, it's all about manipulating certain perpetrator types down a path of increasingly severe criminality, so they increasingly become dependent on a system that guarantees them absolution for their increasingly severe and even sociopathic crimes, provided they toe the line in every way thinkable and be "good soldiers" and not object to the wrong doing of others and not rat anyone out. 

Thus, you can see I was subjected to horrible amounts of bullying -- this was all pre-meditated -- and then individuals would do things that were something that was sort of like a "hook." It was obviously wrong enough so I felt I was justified in complaining -- in writing. And Murray Somerville literally said to me "you made a mistake. bad things are going to happen to you now," and I asked "what bad things?" and he said "oh I don't know yet. Other people are going to carry them out."

--------------

In any case, here is a paper trail which to be honest I have mentioned previously on A Voice For Men, which tends to implicate Seth Moulton as responsible for some kind of scheme with regard to me, except he was doing this on behalf of Murray Somerville. 

OK let me explain. Notice how the December 3 concert which I was thinking of possibly playing had not be filled and instead was listed as "TBA" on the program? Notice how I write an email saying I will play it after all, and Seth goes and tells me it was a misunderstanding and the Harvard Organ Society students were always going to play that concert? Then he changes his tune? Actually, the Harvard Organ Society concert had ALWAYS been scheduled for December 10, and previous programs which I had saved (including Nancy Granert's last concert there) listed the organ society concert always as having been on December 10. So they had never planned for it to be on the 3rd and Seth was lying to me, and that was one reason when I chickened out after his nasty email and said I'd rather not play after all, and let the organ society play on the 3rd as planned, they couldn't do that because it had never been planned for then in the first place. 

Except, hold on a minute, I can't paste this now. 

the problem is, i read a part of it and am shocked at the ambiguous nature of it, which i had no clue about at the time. e.g., i mention how i left murray somerville's office and was so scared i had a surge of adrenaline and left the office with violently shaking hands. of course, what i meant was i was scared and they were shaking with anxiety but now i realize it's ambiguous and looks like i could have left angry and shaking my fists -- except i wouldn't have done so because i was always very protective of my hands and wrists because of the way i play the organ and i am not going to ever get into any physical fights. 

what i do, and what i have done in the past in situations -- which I have gotten in -- where drunk college kids wanted to gay bash me was use my eyes and get this wild eyed look, behave a bit erratically, and stare them down, which always worked. Because, of course, it was always very important never to get into any situation where my hands might possibly be injured. 

but one problem I had at this time at Harvard was I did not know English fully, and one interesting thing is I do remember Lynn Robinson (someone I consulted once when at Harvard) "predicting" that I'd at some point talk to this woman who also talked to my parents, and she would "help me figure out how to articulate" things. And that woman was Malena and, yes, it was only after I started talking to Malena that she kind of taught me proper English so I knew how to fully articulate myself, whereas before, I really truly did not fully know English. `

In which case, I start to wonder, ok something was wrong not only with the students from across the hallway who sexually harassed me but also with the allegedly nicer students from wigglesworth who befriended me and who knew the students from across the hallway who caused me all this trouble -- yet, if they befriended me, sort of, why didn't I have any conversations with them that helped me learn proper english and why was it that i never completely spoke English properly or had full confidence that I knew how to articulate myself so that what I meant was what I was really communicating, until I started working with Malena? 

This parallels the fact that, tons and tons of times when I was at Harvard, students I'd talk to would tell me I spoke with an accent and ask me where I was from, assuming that I was from a foreign country and didn't speak English as my first language. Also, no native born American students ever behaved warmly to me but, instead, it was kind of like they were very standoffish and shunned me, or were minimally polite and formal, while the only students who really had normal conversations with me that were more intimate and close and warm were international students. 

Oh wait, what was also interesting was how, hold on let me see. When I was in Germany, I had this experience where I was date rape drugged and then woke up with terrible amnesia, having totally forgotten that I had ever traveled to Germany and I forgot even what my parents' names were and my own name. Which is odd because other experiences I had with ryphenol did not have such a powerful effect on me in the least. Not only that but, when I was in Germany, I noticed something quite interesting. And that was that I started to speak English using German Word Order, the exact same way they all did. 

And then when I got back, I thought I spoke English right -- but when I look, I see I worded things, oh I think I was using German Word order here. And I didn't even know it. I had forgotten, at that time, that the English meaning of the sentences I wrote was ambiguous. And now when I reread them, I am shocked that I didn't know it at that time. 

They did something more to me than just date rape drug me with ryphenol. They must have done some kind of electric shock therapy or something to my brain. Which messed up my language centers but I didn't know it.

Here my brother mentions it as well. What's weird was I totally didn't know how messed up I was then. 

 

http://www.pbase.com/damian1974/image/161138305

 

Except I know how because I didn't word it right and I didn't know I didn't word it right. I literally had no clue at the time that what I wrote could have meant anything other than that I my hands were shaking, violently, in fear. E.g., shivering from anxiety. 

I do remember that I started speaking English exactly the way they did. The way they'd talk, it was like they would almost sing. And I ended up imitating them exactly. What was weird was, a man from West Germany invited me to stay at his house, and he spoke English like all the East Germans did, in a singing way, but his parents spoke perfectly normal English. Which means, ok i wonder if they were deliberately speaking English with an alternative word order, just for me. and if i had had anmesia or something that caused amnesia or damage to language centers, it's possible that this would have caused me to unwittingly relearn english improperly.

This is so shocking. 

 

Here let me paste what I wrote in one email: 

 

"He has displayed the most eggregious and shocking aggressive interpersonal behavior towards me when we are alone together and he can "get away with it." With older and more prominent people, he will control himself better,

but there have been times when I have come out of meetings with him with my hands literally shaking. " 

 

But there is another email I wrote which was even worse, so bad I initially thought some hacker must have rewrote it but, after thinking about it for awhile, I remembered, no I really did write this. I remember writing "surge of adrenaline" and "violently shaking hands." 

And here I wrote to Samuel Hayes:

 

"Maybe I am all wrong about this, but if I am paranoid, it is because of the terrible threats he has made against me when not in the presence of others, as well as the few instances in which he has simply "lost-it" and behaved in such a manner that I literally feared for my safety and got an adreneline surge so strong that I walked out of his office with violently shaking hands."

 

The English here is, I have to say, all weird, but this reminds me exactly of the way those East Germans talked, including how they used the wrong word order, thus instead of saying "hands shaking violently" I said "violently shaking hands." Also, I shouldn't have used the word "violent" to describe how they were shaking. i was afraid, not angry. what i meant was 'hands shaking in fear.' so i somehow substituted the wrong word, without fully realizing it, and used the wrong word order as well, without having the slightest clue it could be misinterpreted. 

 

I wonder if they did something to me in Germany more than date rape drug me. Either that or this is an example of the email record being altered via computer hacker so as to change the meaning slightly.