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

 Originally Posted by dmschlom 

I agree with everything you said in your analysis -- except what I am saying is not guff. Nor does it contradict what I am suspecting.

 

Maxx:
 
Yes it does contradict what you are saying. 

Because everything I'm saying explains EXACTLY how and why Elliot Rodgers went 'off the deep end' of his own accord.
 

 Originally Posted by dmschlom 

Yes, it is quite true, Rodgers could have gone off the deep end, gotten really angry, and decided to "get revenge" and so on and so forth. It strikes me, it's more likely he would have not done a huge big "production" like that on his own but done something much more personal, which would not have been a high profile show but something that looked like an attempt to get revenge on just one or two individuals he felt REALLY upset over. What he did -- even if he knew what he was doing and intended to -- is something I find unlikely for him or someone else to have done without the encouragement or collusion of others.

Maxx:
 
This is just wild speculation on your part. He didn't do a 'huge production' for starters. And there is nothing he did that requires the 'collusion of others'.

Also he killed a bunch of dudes he lived then ran down and shot a couple of people (most of them men) before getting taken down.
 

 Originally Posted by dmschlom 

However, everything you say about Elliot Rodgers would have made him far more susceptible to being set up and framed in the manner in which I suggest could have happened. He is not taught "game" -- he is not taught the social tools he needs to get people to treat him like a social equal, to give him the time of day, etc., and so forth. He is kept ignorant.

Maxx:
Why the hell would anyone 'frame' Elliot Rodgers?

Nothing you are suggesting makes an sense whatsoever. 

 Originally Posted by dmschlom 

But, anyway, back to Elliot Rodgers. He knows no game, people do not treat him normally, he is shunned. This makes him easy pickings for anyone who might want to set him up. All they'd have to do is, remember everyone is shunning him -- a few people can go say they are head honchos in Hollywood, with connections, influence, they want to make him a star (whatever promises they tell, they can have a story) and they are suddenly unusually nice to him, treat him nicely in a way he is not used to, and he is putty in their hands and will be willing to do whatever they want him to do, not suspecting.

Maxx:
 
No one set him up. People smart enough to set someone up in the absurd manner you suggest would be smart enough to pick a better target...

Rodgers loathed game and puas...anyone trying to set him up to smear these groups could have picked a target who didn't.
Rodgers shunned Men's rights and subscribed to liberal progressive news sources like Young Turks and Colbert Report...again people trying to smear or shun MRAs or the MRM would have been smart enough to pick say an AvFM member or someone actually connected to the groups they might wish to smear. Libertarians. People who actually expose actual shady government dealings. 

Rodgers father was a militant atheist who blew much of his fortune making a documentary attacking the church. If this was a set up by statists (in the government or part of the government or whatever) wouldn't they have set up someone that was actually affliated the church rather than someone who was so focused on a personal secularist crusade against it that he took his eye off the ball while his son decended into insanity?
 

 Originally Posted by dmschlom 

Well, yeah it's true most people would be a bit suspicious if asked to do videos like that -- except, notice his last video. he is obviously reading from a teleprompter, looking to the side every few seconds. Who is feeding him his lines? The speech was long enough so it couldn't all have been written down on one page. He would have had to have cue cards -- and then put one down and picked another one up. Or a several page statement written in large letters, but you'd see him do more than just looking to the side, you'd have to have heard him rustling pages. There were no page turns -- which there should have been, unless it was a teleprompter, but if there was a teleprompter, doesn't someone have to pace things so the lines get fed to him at the right speed? Or did he do it himself? Why did the New York Times not report "it appears he was reading from a prepared statement in that video" and then inquire as to whether cops FOUND the written statement, or found a teleprompter, assuming that was what he used? THAT'S FISHY.

 
Maxx:
NOTHING is fishy about it. You are fishing. Badly. And i don't think this sort of wild speculation is a fruitful avenue to go down but each to his own.
 

 Originally Posted by dmschlom 

is, the way it works, lack of "game" could both mean he might have snapped and done something -- except wouldn't he have done something more on the spur of the moment? More impulsive? Out of anger? But it also could have made him be simply way too easily manipulated by others. 

So, what I'm saying isn't guff. But everything else you say, I totally agree with.

Maxx:
What are you talking about? Why would he have done something more 'spur of the moment' or 'more impulsive'? Are insane people known for being predictable and doing spur of the moment things? Where are you getting this from?

Have you read his manifesto? Are you suggesting it's fake too?

No one would manipulate Elliot Rodgers into doing these things because a guy like HIM doing things isn't part of the plan. If they'd set up a libertarian MRA NRA member and regular church goer there might be a shred of logic of reason behind what you are saying, but there isn't. 

You can't agree with what I'm saying because what I'm saying is that if you simply join the dots everything that happened in this case MAKES PERFECT SENSE. 

There isn't any mystery to any of it.

All the issues raised in my blog posts converged to create a perfect storm that makes perfect sense.

There is no need to reach the way you are. 

Sometimes the shoe simply doesn't fit.

If someone in the government wanted to 'frame' someone for this Elliot Rogers...son of a hollywood liberal, half-asian raised as a miliant atheist secular progressive, fan of the young turks...anti-pua...anti-mra

...would be the WORST possible candidate for framing.

If these people are smart enough to pull off the absurd set up you suggest they'd not be dumb enough to pick Elliot Rodger as their mark.
Last edited by Maxx; Today at 06:00 PM.
 
Share
Comment