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.

March 08, 2015  /  Damian Schloming

[QUOTE=Mequa;134903]I've been there, on the receiving end of it. Disgust is too mild a term. I know what it feels like to hate another human being so strongly that I would wish for their death.


...[/QUOTE]

You know, I hope you read my previous post I wrote right before I responded to this. Because what you say here just struck me. You might notice, I have pointed out that I think it looks a hell of a lot like the whole Elliot Rogers thing was a set up and he was framed. Some people said witnesses saw other people in his car when he was allegedly shooting people (which means it could have been other people who shot people, killed him, and then police could fake that it was really him who did it). Yet, if you look at his last video, what you can instantly see is, he was reading from a teleprompter -- which does suggest someone was feeding him his lines. And his position in Hollywood would have made it very easy for him to be manipulated by people into making those videos merely because they could tell him they were thinking of turning him into an ACTOR and this was all an audition for some part. 

Well, I am starting to wonder about the treatment I have been receiving at the hands of the gay community lately -- extra provocative in so many ways, like really designed to make me get more and more angry and start to express it too. And I am reminded of one particular article I remember reading where someone who knew some of Elliot Rogers peers said that some of them even speculated that their treatment of him might lead to a massacre or something, aka the cruelty. Read this, for instance:

[url]http://www.laurieacouture.com/2014/06/in-the-aftermath-of-the-elliot-rodger-tragedy-society-is-still-ignoring-the-real-causes-of-youth-violence/[/url]

However, to be honest, all they need to do in an instance like this is to merely pick on someone enough so he gets very disgruntled, extremely disgusted, and starts expressing himself and about it. 

And then once they have done that, then they can go have the FBI go and shoot a bunch of people, including the victim, but frame the victim for it. 

And you might recall from my website, how this Pete from cape cod told me the mafia was going to shut me up in writing -- and his friend told me it will all be over soon and higher level government agencies were involved? Here you can read it here: 

This one:

[url]http://www.pbase.com/damian1974/image/156852235[/url]

And this one (right afterwards): [url]http://www.pbase.com/damian1974/image/156852343[/url]

Well, there is more to it than just that, but I have left it out for now. 

These emails were nasty emails they sent me after the following occurred. 

I had visited this Pete man, and he pretty much held me captive for a day and a night, not locked in but he intimidated me and told me I'd be killed if I left the cape and he said I needed to give him $1000 or I'd get killed. He insisted on the money the previous night and I stalled him by saying any money I have won't clear or there is some limit so I have to wait til the following day. I ended up spending the night at his apartment, which was a basement apartment he rented from some men, and he slept while one of the men upstairs literally stayed awake all night and paced back and forth, all apparently to keep me from sneaking out and leaving. The next day I withdrew the money, but I was afraid of being set up, so before I withdrew the money I said I had to go to the bathroom and, in the bathroom, I sent the email to my mother which is pictured in the following gallery "I mist pay $1000 or be killed" so I'd have a record that I wasn't PAYING someone voluntarily. 

It was a few days after, that Pete started calling me up and wanted to talk to me -- and I refused to talk until I had driven to my mothers where I felt safe (and where I'd be talking on the phone in front of a witness) and that's when he started to try to have a conversation with me where he wanted to change the story around. He said "that money you paid me -- you paid it to me in order to receive the protection of the mafia" and then I said "no I didn't, you said I'd be killed if I didn't pay you that money." And the moment i started saying "no I didn't," a huge amount of static suddenly started appearing on the phone line (it actually sounded like a ton of bricks falling or a train going by making a VERY loud noise), and also the same thing happened when I also said, on the phone out loud, how I noticed that before I left my apartment, some individual who was there appeared to have left some white stuff on my bed which looked like drugs. Same thing too -- suddenly when I start saying that, the static/noise drowned my voice out. And then I ask him "what's that noise?" and he says "I don't know" and that's when I said "I know what you are doing, you are recording me and trying to drown out any parts of the recording where I say something that you don't want to hear." 

And then he and the other guys who were there (there were many) got very angry and started yelling at me. 

So, yeah, the FBI definitely does stuff like that. You may recall how there are articles out there that talk about how the FBI goes and sometimes entraps innocent people who aren't intending to commit any kind of crime. It's a bit worse than merely using a lot of manipulation and peer pressure to try to get someone to look like they are about to commit a crime. They literally will go sometimes commit the crime for them and frame them for it afterwards, or in the process. Like literally arrange for the person who is to be set up be kidnapped while they commit the murder, and then afterwards the real perpetrators go free, and law enforcement makes sure to fake it all. 

Anyway, here are the emails that document what went on with me and that Pete person. Most definitely what he did was a crime of some sorts. Of course, the problem is, if he really was working with the FBI, it was all set up so they could deny any involvement, or at least I cannot prove any involvement. If I had recorded my phone calls, perhaps I could have proven something fishy was going on. But that would have been illegal in Massachusetts. 

[url]http://www.pbase.com/damian1974/emails_suggesting_pete_of_cape_cod_may_have_been_working_with_th[/url]

So, that's the question? If I say anything that makes me sound like an angry person, that puts me in danger of being kidnapped by a bunch of thugs who go shoot a bunch of people, then shoot me and cops all fake that I was the one who did it. Which could very well be what happened with Elliot Rogers. There is some evidence that may have occurred -- and, if you pay attention to the coverage of Elliot Rogers, you will notice the New York Times is negligent in refusing to speculate on how Rogers was obviously reading his last thing from a prepared statement, or from a teleprompter. So the coverage is really lousy.

What I am wondering, though, is, is it possible that the various ways I am being treated not only by gay men online but by other people on websites I comment on, the manner in which it's like extra efforts are made to both irritate me, attack me, make me feel demoralized, even while making my life miserable in other ways: is it possible there are people out there who think, a good way of cleaning up the whole "mess" they made with me is to go murder me in such a way so that they can make me out to be an "Elliot Roger" incident? And, there is a hope I might get angry enough and express it -- therefore they hope they can provoke me into expressing myself in a way so people might think it more plausible? I am afraid one cannot rule that sort of thinking out, with these people.

Share
Comment