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.

Filtering by Category: url

My AVRM comments on Malcolm X gay prostitution welfare and race

March 14, 2014  /  Damian Schloming  /  Source

http://forums.avoiceformen.com/showthread.php?8913-White-people-are-banned-from-participating-in-diversity-event

I need to figure out how to make the above a linkable URL. But, until I figure that out…..

In any case, here is what I wrote. Does it sound radical? Maybe so. Then again, the information I have been exposed to and all sorts of examples I have seen first hand, regarding rampant abuse of the poor by government bureaucrats in all sorts of areas and with themes consistently tying such abuse to business schemes really leaves me no alternative. There is something about seeing something for yourself first hand that is telling.

I write here:

I personally think, well it depends on what the definition of diversity is. You can have one type of diversity event that's billed as an opportunity for different backgrounds to mix together, in which case no party should be banned. The purpose is homogenization and mixing with people of different backgrounds. Otherwise, I personally do not think there is anything wrong with one particular group to want to get together with those of similar background to them. I know it's controversial to say that. At the same time, it happens all the time anyway. Why pretend we are not a society defined by nepotism? Why not admit to it but specify that what matters is that people of different races or classes or other status do not mistreat members of alternative groups? Furthermore, it should be ok to want to mix with those of other backgrounds in some circumstances, but not in other circumstances. 

My perspective on this is quite interesting because, as a gay man, I do like to sleep with men of other races, but I tend to like different races in different ways and what activity I do with one race isn't going to be the same as with another race. What I find, though, is that when I sleep with a black guy, I usually like to talk with him as well because there is something about black and Italian men where it's like their communication styles wake up a side to me that is usually dormant when I talk to most white men, but which I can exercise when I talk to blacks or Italians. It's that whole side to communication that relies less on analytical words and more on emotion and body language, and it's very hard for me to explain it but I use a different part of my brain when I talk to most blacks and most italians than I use when I talk with most whites or Asians. And I like it. But I like talking with whites and asian types too. Because I have that side to me too. 

All that is part of the human condition. I also have to say I criticize that side of political correctness that insists on total homogenization at all times. Society must be put in a blender and all evenly mixed up and homogenized with quotas in every single organization and no opportunity for different organizations to have specific unique characters. That's boring. Diversity shouldn't mean mandatory homogenization achieved in a top down command and control manner, where every organization out there lives in fear of the slightest criticism of having some kind of failing in the "diversity correctness" department.

In response perhaps not to me:

By Jack H.

So these people are IN FAVOR of Segregation?

I bet Martian Luther King Jr is spinning in his grave right about now.

 

By me:

 

Well this is an interesting issue. 

You should consider reading about Malcolm X. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malcolm_X

and his criticism of the mainstream civil rights movement. 

And also try to contrast his life with that of Martin Luther King. 

I am trying to look up the article where I read about him, but what I remember is, the reason Malcolm X espoused black separatism was because he concluded that white society was a hopeless cause, and could never be trusted not to oppress and exploit blacks. When you look at how feminist control of the welfare system, along with how the welfare system shifted to one involving incarceration of black men along with "mental disability" diagnoses for black children of single mothers, along with requirements that they be put on debilitating neureleptics, which are erroneously four times the diagnosis rates of whites (at least), and this happened all on Bill Clinton's and George W. Bush's watch, both of whom were responsible for a lot of deal making between the welfare bureaucracy, private prisons and healthcare companies. 

At this point, it's about time someone said maybe Malcolm X had a point. And for a white person to argue he had a point isn't a sign of racism -- rather, it is an indightment of the massive and extreme criminality of the US government and business world, along with the tendency for white society to use blacks as scapegoats ESPECIALLY when claiming to be acting "compassionate" and "wanting to help" towards them. When you look at what goes on in this society, some of the abuse that goes on in minority communities which is barely ever talked about, one cannot help but conclude that more people need to consider thinking like Malcolm X.

You should also note an interesting contrast between the life of Malcolm X and Martin Luther King. Malcolm X did some work as a gay prostitute. Martin Luther King didn't. My opinion has always been, that one little distinction explains the difference in their viewpoints much more than people might imagine. 

Who is more right? 

Malcolm X had first hand experience dealing with some of those bastards.

He knew.

I don't think history is going to be kind to modern society's treatment of blacks post civil rights movement.

I should note, after the holocaust, Jews didn't all move to Germany in order to bask in and trust the German government's promises to make amends. They created Israel.

 

Share
Comment
categories / url