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.

Is rise of feminist movement tied to jim crow south and federalization of welfare?

March 14, 2014  /  Damian Schloming  /  Source

 

 

http://forums.avoiceformen.com/showthread.php?8908-How-can-Feminism-convince-others-that-it-is-not-racist-when-it-really-is

 

Before I copy and paste this, I can only say, I've noticed in some of the writings of those who work with Janet Halley who write about Governance Feminism and feminists' influence on the international stage, that feminists have a tendency to work in fragmented ways. As a result, I'm guessing it is almost certain they had a role in Jim Crow south yet, at the same time, could always deny responsibility because they were always pretending to look at women's issues with a microscope and not seeing the forest for the trees. Yet, I highly suspect they DID see the forest for the trees because, ultimately, the jobs for women they always wanted to institute were ones that had "unintended consequences" resulting in oppression of men who were black at the highest rates, and in addition to which, these jobs were all service sector jobs which would not exist, but for the ability of industrial elites to mobilize a small number of working men into providing enough surplus necessities for the rest of the population, large enough to create the wealth necessary to create jobs for women feminists specialized in on a large scale basis. So, ultimately, economics says -- feminism depended on Jim Crow. And, Jim Crow policies enabled our country to exploit labor at the bottom cheaply enough to create the NON-PRODUCTIVE service sector "jobs for women" feminists claim THEY created simply by asking for it. Jobs which they really would not have had the time for -- but for their physical needs being provided for by the drudgery of others. Since, after all, food doesn't magically appear in refrigerators. Someone has to labor in the fields to grow it.

 

How can Feminism convince others that it is not racist when it really is?

By Alien Gearbox:
How can people (and esp. Feminism) be so extremely racist, while convincing the world they are the opposite?! I don't get it... I wonder if I am simply an ignorant idiot here...

Let's say we look at statistics on the job market, for some unexplained reason we divide it up into black people and white people (not sure how they place a dividing bar, when are you not enough black or white to be in the statistic?!)
Anyway lets say that we see that blacks have a harder time finding jobs than whites (I am not from the US, so I have no fucking idea)

AHA some idiot says while standing up with his finger in the air!
Lets make this program that helps black people find jobs!!
*everyone claps*
wtf?
is this not indeed a racist initiative? since the only ones who benefit from it is of a certain color?
why not just make a program that helps people find jobs who have a hard time finding jobs? why does it have to by based on skin color?! 
if more blacks have problems finding jobs, more blacks will use the program anyway, then it will not be racist bullshit that excludes those of other colors who have an equally hard time finding jobs albeit fewer in numbers, but even so no less important to find jobs for...

Am I misunderstanding something here?

please, someone enlighten me.

I would not be surprised at all if Feminism is the main reason why the black community in the US have been fucked over so extremely thoroughly today : /
Feminism needs to either be utterly obliterated, or have some drastic changes made to it, it's über destructive and keeps getting away with it, and everyone thinks it's ultimately a good thing, people have no fucking clue, do they? : /

maybe we should change the name of the mens rights movement to "all that is good movement" so that if anyone disagrees with what we say, people can just say shit like "SO you hate all that is good?! you bastard!!" ugghhhh.

Please someone who knows more about the racism in feminism, share your knowledge on the the true extent of it.
I'm mostly interested in knowing how they get away with it.
 
Androgen:
 
This is kind of a "Politics" forum post. 

Yes, white women have played a very large role in the oppression of blacks throughout American history. Remember all those goons in the south were often lynching a black man because he looked or spoke to a white women and she took extreme offense to this violation upon her "sanctity and honor." Black people have nothing in the United States, 50% of black men are arrested by 23 (along with 40% of white men). They make up a huge portion of the prison population as well. They occupy an extremely tiny portion of Universities in regards to their population size - compared to races like Asians who are 12% of the population in California and have nearly 50% of the University of California's enrollment spots. 

When people get mad about black people receiving some sort of excess treatment, it's really picking on the kid in the corner who gets beat up every day because someone finally noticed he was being beat up every day. A lot of the problems with the black community are extremely systematic. I'm definitely more for "let's get black people jobs" than "let's issue more labor visas." I'm not really opposed to immigration as a rule, but when there are people in the country who need jobs and resources that will be taken by immigrants, I do get a little annoyed.

Black people have an extremely unique (and terribly brutal and unjust) history in America. It's not like saying "Islam can be pretty violent and they've been heavily at war with western powers for a long time now." These were people whose ancestors were sold and brought here as property, forced into slavery and when they were released from slavery, treated just as poorly if not worse in some respects. They have a long history in America and they deserve every ounce of participation in our society as they've been here just as long as whites have and have endured sickening brutalities. I don't believe in punishing whites for sins of their ancestors, but the systematic discrimination faced by blacks is an utterly sickening chapter of human history. Unlike white women, black people actually were severely oppressed in America. 

For the same reason, we don't have reservations for Mexicans because, well, most of them were immigrants as well and we didn't drive them off land and exterminate them when we came here.

Anyway, my point is, feminists claim they've endured endless brutal oppression at the hands of men... but you'll never find a picture of it like this (look at all the smiling ladies):
 
And me in response:
 
Honestly when I look at that picture and see the expressions on those people's faces -- well, they aren't like disney villains but they are just like farmers who herd cattle and sometimes slaughter them. Very matter of fact about the whole thing. 

I think women played a role in Jim Crow south where their involvement in the welfare system made them brokers of a sort. They would have unemployed black families apply for welfare benefits, and they could use that situation to help certain companies -- favored companies who gave money to the right politicians, and also possibly who helped to endow the various women's colleges these female welfare workers graduated from -- get really cheap black labor when they needed it. All through a welfare system that created dependency then kicked men off in order to force them to work cheaply. There were a lot of welfare schemes that varied from state to state during Jim Crow, but apparently they all did have a pattern of inefficiency built in where government jobs for white women vastly took precedence over generosity to the poor. However, the feminist movement's ascendancy coincided with the War on Poverty's NATIONALIZATION and FEDERALIZATION of the welfare system. And if you read certain articles on governance feminism -- try googling "janet halley governance feminism" and you will find a few -- every so often sprinkled into the narrative, you will see them explaining that feminists have "moved away from seeing the welfare system as the tool for realization of their goals and towards incarceration as their primary tool for realization of their goals." Not exact words, I am trying to quote from memory and am lazy right now. 

Still, after reading that, I decided to research the timing of the Civil War, rise of Jim Crow South, and establishment of all those women's colleges that later became bastions of feminism. Sure enough, just like I expected, they all happened AT THE SAME TIME in the late 19th century. Furthermore, I might also note one thing. Feminism -- when seen as a movement embedded in the welfare bureaucracy -- only took on the character of a national movement as the war on poverty FEDERALIZED the welfare system.
It does make sense, previously with each state doing things slightly differently, it would have been impossible for them to come together as quite a cohesive national movement before. After all, the way one state wants to do things might well conflict with the way another state wants to do things. But, once the federal government creates a uniformity of design in the system, a political movement tied to the interests of the system can coalesce on a national stage at the same time -- and not before.
 
And to continue my comments, beyond what I wrote on AVFM, one thing I can note with feminism is, it's a pseudo-religious philosophy that is innately tied to a particular political system creating a uniformity of economic self-interest in government bureaucracies and related hangers on all throughout the country. Thus, a religious type ideology could be crafted that helps to buttress the specifics of this economic system design, even while the ideology is buttressed by the fact that actual positions are created for bureaucrats and other officials, conditional upon them converting to the ideology and marching in lock step with a few of its strict tenets.
Share
Comment