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.

Huffington Post article on clownfish

March 21, 2014  /  Damian Schloming

[url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/justin-s-rhodes/naturally-occurring-sex-change-and-the-rise-of-the-alpha-female_b_4968667.html?utm_hp_ref=science[/url]

 

I am interested in this subject because I am somewhat interested in the whole debate between kin selection and group selection. I was reading a "feminist economics" website and one thing that is very clear is that feminists butcher the english language, especially international feminists interested in corrupting local third world countries for economic reasons.

In that sense, the word "dominant" has had its meaning butchered, where they try to say women are dominant but then it's given this over-the-top meaning such as Angelina Jolie mimicking Arnold Schwartzenegger. Also, female dominance also is intended to mean women having equal or higher salaries to men -- yet, this contradicts all studies that show that social isolation and social networking determine which member of a couple has the upper hand over the other. Abusers, of course, try to isolate a victim from all other social contact, from friends and family. They rarely try to get a victim fired from a job -- because they know a job is a transactional relationship where the employer wants to exploit the employee, and co-workers are under the control of the same employer and thus not allowed to be friends and allies, certainly not the kind of ally that would band together and help in event of a problem. Somehow cutting women off from all voluntary social connections they might have time to make as stay at home mothers and force them into a work place full of frenemies under the tutelage of a CEO whose job is to maximize profit according to the capitalist regime is empowerment of women according to feminists?

 

Only if they limit "power" to include actual amount of salary paid. And, in addition, limit all discussions to carceral issues and assume that social power does not exist but all power is that which can be exercised in either the criminal justice system or the civil legal system, and since justice is bought, of course, gender equality can only be achieved by ensuring women have salaries equal in size to that of men. How simplistic.

 

Meanwhile, some studies I've seen do show that women are far more likely to network with KIN while men network with larger groups outside of just kin. This dovetails with the debate between kin selection and group selection, where scholars refuse to consider the possibility of gender differences between men and women and thus write very vaguely. 

However, oddly enough, feminist economists seem to know women are more likely to engage in kin selection while men are more likely to engage in group selection. However they butcher the english language in describing and distorting it, with one article I read by a feminist arguing that "women are considered to be more altruistic than men" but the qualifying that as meaning "more concerned for there own families." What that means, of course, is the moment a woman is put in a position of power -- say she becomes mayor of a small town, or is merely the wife of the mayor of a small town, of course she will ensure several people are fired and her own kids are hired in their place in government jobs. Aka, woman are far more likely to engage in nepotism favoring family members. And, guess what? That's not the definition of altruism, which involves helping people who are outside your immediate family -- which is what men do. That's called nepotism -- which is precisely what the West encourages in third world country elites, so they can rape and exploit the third world. 

However, I can see why feminists would want to butcher the English language, and then proceed to try to institute gender equality in foreign third world countries the USA wants to exploit, arguing women are more altruistic than men, and then proceed to "empower" the richest women of a third world country in the process of paying off the elites of third world countries.

 

The "altruism" of third world elite women ensures that the concerns of the poor not take precedence over the interests of their immediate family members smoothly ensures that the poor of third world countries are brutally exploited in service of the West. Furthermore, women are hypergamous while men are not. Women will favor rich foreigners and not want to turn down foreign aid, whereas local men will be much more hostile to intrusion by the West in service of exploiting said population economically, especially if it means all sorts of interference. They will stand up for their PRINCIPLES even if it means turning down MONEY, they will stand up for their local AUTONOMY even if it means sacrificing some amount of SECURITY.

Western Feminists are rightly obsessed with "gender equality" inasmuch as it distracts attention from the concerns of the poor or, indeed, anyone who isn't rich. Meanwhile, so long as third world poor women are exploited EQUALLY AS BADLY as third world poor men, all is good. "Empowering" (paying off) rich women and encouraging their "altruism" {nepotism} towards their family members means encouraging rich third world women to sell out the rest of the population and help enslave them to Western exploitation. Oh well, the more you study feminism, the more you notice, if there is one thing feminists worship above all else, it is money. 

Share
Comment