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.

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

September 07, 2015  /  Damian Schloming

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

 

Share
Comment