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.

More background information

September 03, 2015  /  Damian Schloming

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. 

Comment