True Belief Vs. Make Belief

In order to have faith in what you believe it must be able to support the weight of your direct experience. If it cannot, then faith faulters, as it should, and new understanding and a new belief must be sought. But the very prospect of being without something to "believe" is so frightening to most that they choose instead to believe "blindly", which is to say that they completely ignore what direct personal experience might tell them, and their support their beliefs instead by elaborate systems of fantastic secondary experiences - in other words, fantasies. I call this "make believing".

(J.D. 11-30-13)

Politics and Religion

History tells us that organized religion has always been about politics - i.e. a means of manipulating the consent and consensus of a group of people in order to consolidate power and control over them. But, since all history is written by those currently in power it is not so easy to read in it the fact that all political organizations - i.e. governments - are systems of religious belief, used as the means of manipulating the consent and consensus of a group of people in order to consolidate power and control over them. If one but only looks briefly however, this becomes apparent; which is why all governments spend so much time and effort distracting the people so they won't think about looking behind the curtain of politics, or a question what they have been systematically taught to believe.

(J.D. 11-30-13)

Being In The Now

Being in the Now does not mean ignoring or otherwise disregarding the past and/or the future. It means incorporating and embracing the past and the future as part of the Now.

It makes no sense to ignore the lessons of the past, and even less sense to ignore the possibilities of the future. Some say that the future and the past do not exist, only the Now is real. But that is like saying China does not exist simply because you are not there and cannot see it. Of course we ultimately don't know if China exists unless we are actually there, and even then the reality of it is debatable. But, to assume that China does not exist simply because we can't see it is more foolish than assuming it does. And so assuming that the future or past does not exist only because we are not there now is more foolish than assuming they do exist. It is better to assume they do.

It is better still to assume nothing, not even that you exist. In this way we can focus on our experience "in the Now" without the confusion of pointless philosophical questions. The past and the future in this sense become as much a part of our experience in the Now as anything else. Our memories become our experience in the now of the past, and our imagination becomes our experience of the future. Is not memory and imagination just as real as what you see, touch, taste, smell, or feel? Of course it is, and science even confirms this to be so. Numerous studies show that what our mind "sees" is not the same as what our eyes "see". Everything we experience is filtered and interpreted before we ever become aware of it. So to assume that what you imagine the future to be is any less real than what you see the Now to be is just another way of deceiving yourself, and ultimately only deprives you of truly experiencing the Now at all!

We must embrace the future in the Now, and bring the past along too. That doesn't mean letting the past determine the Now, or even the future. It means only remembering the past in the Now, but not mistaking it for the Now. If we are not in China then we do not need to speak Chinese. But, if we know how to speak Chinese we do not pretend we do not. I hope I'm making my point - the past is the past, and is best left in the past, but not forgotten.

Likewise, the future is the future, and while it is good to prepare for what we imagine the future may bring, it is not good to try to force the future (i.e. via the present) to be something it is not. In other words, if the future does not bring what we expect or what we hoped, then we must accept what it does bring, learn and adapt. That is all part of being in the Now.

(J.D. 12-2-13)

Welcome To Your Eternal Life

To suppose, as many do,that this life is some sort of precursor to another eternal life of idealized perfection (e.g. heaven) is not just ignorant, it is contrary to the reality of perfection, and the reality of eternal life; it is contrary to heaven itself.

This life is your eternal life, and it is already perfect. If it wasn't perfect (in the absolute sense) then you simply would not exist. Think about it. In order for you to exist, circumstances going all the way back to the Big Bang had to be exactly what they were, i.e. perfect. You are the product of perfection! If one single atom had spun up instead of down ten billion years ago, our solar system wouldn't exist today, and of course neither would you.

But, that atom did spin down, and in combination with trillions upon trillions upon trillions of other profound events, equally significant, we came into being. If just one of those events of the tiniest impact had been any different, any less perfect, then the universe, our world, and you, would simply not be.

This is not some mystical idea that requires blind faith to believe. It is a fundamental and self-evident truth that takes only a little honest introspection, and courage to challenge your established beliefs, for you to see it, and comprehend it for yourself. You needn't take my word or anyone's word for it. The universe was created perfect, for all with eyes to see and bear witness too. And it will remain perfect throughout all of eternity.

James T. Kirk once said (in a Star Trek book that I don't remember the title of off hand), "The doors to truth are guarded by paradox and confusion. If we turn our back to these, they will remain closed behind us." So, if we are to know truth, we must accept confusion and paradox, but only because we look at eternity through mortal eyes; we see infinity through the finite, and it makes no sense.

Just You

When someone you thought you knew well does something completely unexpected and something completely contrary to the person you thought you knew, it leaves you with an intensely bewildering sense of not knowing that person at all. But, it's never really that person whom you don't know, it's always just you.

If you doubt this truth, as many will, then you ask yourself honestly how it is that you know anyone at all. We say we "know" someone when our experience with that person forms a consistent pattern. We then typically lean on our experience with that person and expect them to remain consistent, to not change.

If a person we meet is unpredictable or inconsistent, then we never get the sense of knowing them. It is like predictability that allows us the sense of knowing anyone, or anything for that matter.

But ultimately, nothing (and no one) is ever truly predictable. Of course I'm saying only that things change, people change. Nothing remains the same, or behaves the same, through time. Not even molecules. Atomic particles change their behavior according to their proximity and relationship to other particles. So do people.

So the next time someone does something you don't expect, ask yourself who YOU really are, not them.

Lost Love

I believe that no matter what you think you love, if it can be taken away, ever, then it is not true love you feel, only a kind of conditioned familiar attachment. In this world it is a common confusion, and a severely detrimental one, to say the least.

As I've written here before, I think true love is not an emotion, at least not in any conventional or contemporary sense. It can certainly stir up emotions, but not just the pleasant ones. True love is behind rage as much as infatuation. Yet both rage and infatuation, as well as most other "human feelings", are merely destortions of true love's real intent.

A Question For Christians

I have a question I'd like to ask any Christian who believes I am condemned for not believing what they believe. If you are such a person, then please post your answer to my question as a comment for this blog entry, or mail an answer to me personally (my current mailing address can be found by searching for my name, Joseph Duncan, at BOP.com).

This is no simple question, so a little foundations is in order. Please bear with me.

First, it is important to remember from your Sunday school lessons that Jesus, the Son of God, as a man, was in the eyes of society at the time he walked the earth some two thousand years ago, not only a known criminal, but also a pariah of the lowest sorts. He may have entered Jerusalem triumphantly, but by the time of the passover he was being pursued and hated by mobs of people who threatened those who merely admitted knowing Jesus with punishment, or worse. And after Jesus was condemned by the dominant religious order of his day, he was spit upon, cursed, and openly scorned as a blasphemer, the lowest of the low.

And that brings me to my second point of foundation. It is a well documented but little understood historical fact that in Jesus' day the crime of of blasphemy was the most despicable crime of all; worse than stealing, worse than kidnapping, worse than rape, and even worse than serial murder, as the release of Barabbas clearly atests. But, what few people realize is that blasphemy was even worse than child rape, a lot worse. In fact, child rape was not even a crime, and in special circumstances it was explicitly sanctioned by Jewish law, THE Law of that day.

The Talmud, only a part of which appears in the Christian Bible, explicitly demands that a man have intercourse with a girl he takes as his wife, who can be as young as three years old, in order to consummate the marriage. It also decrees that if a man dies and his brother wishes to adopt his wives, he must again copulate with them, regardless of their age, young or old. And if a small girl is raped before the age of three, the Talmud states only that as long as she heals so that her genitalia remains intact she is to be still considered a virgin for the purpose of marriage. No penalty what-so-ever is mentioned for the rapist, except that he must marry the girl if she "loses her virginity" to him.

And if you think that's shocking, it gets worse (or maybe better, if you're a "deviant" like me). Remember the oft-cited old-testament law against homosexuality, the one that explicitly forbids a man to "lay with another man as a woman"? Well, the Talmud goes on to clarify, just as explicitly, that a boy under the age of nine years, is not considered a "man" for the purpose of this law, and therefore it is perfectly acceptable to lie with a boy, "as a woman", and even preferable since there is then no risk of obligating yourself to a wedding afterwards!

Now, like I said, all this is well documented, unjustified, and unexcused even by modern Orthodox Jews. I haven't mentioned what Jewish law permits in regard to slave girls, but I hope that by now you can start to imagine (or perhaps, fantasize). If you don't believe me then Google it for yourself. It was printed documentation of this kind of information that was once confiscated from my jail cell in Ada County (Boise, Idaho) during my competency hearing. The U.S. Marshals who found it called it "child porn", and refused to return it to me even though there was nothing pornographic about it. It was strictly an unbiased and academic discussion of "Child sex in the Talmud" (a good Goodle quote). Apparently the subject alone was enough to be considered by them as, "pornographic". (They incidentally reported to my attorneys that they had found "child porn" in my cell, without telling them what they meant by "child porn"; a clear - but failed - attempt to foster attorney-client bias.)

Are you still with me? If you're like most Christians you'll be rationalizing at this point, making up excuses and reasons to explain away or justify the raw information I have exposed you to here. You will remind yourself that I am after all a "child killer", and subject to the devil, so anything I say that causes you to doubt what you believe in regard to Jesus or God is just the devil using me to get to you, to "take your soul" I suppose. But, if every time that you question or doubt what you believe you blame the devil, then how will you ever learn the truth if what you believe is wrong?

Wait, that's not my question. Before we get to that let's go back one more time and take another look at the heinous crime of blasphemy that "our Lord and Savior" (by his own admission) was guilty of.

What's so bad about blasphemy that it was once spat from the mouths of common citizens with the same hateful vehenence that we now cry "child molester!?" You might think that Jesus' crime was only played up by the Pharisees in order to justify killing him out of their own self-centered ignorance of the truth. But that's not the case at all. The truth is that blasphemy was a very real and serious threat to social order and not just the authority of the Pharisaic lawmen.

In those days religious beliefs were the glue that held society together; and it was the only glue. Without its authority there could be no cities or towns or even villages. The Romans knew this, and that's why they never interfered with the religious beliefs or authority of the regions they conquered. Instead they simply imposed a separate authority - the authority of the state - over religious authority. But, they let the religious authorities practise and inforce their beliefs with very little to no interference. The Romans understood from experiences that to interfer with local religion invariably resulted in the dissolution of community and the loss of the conquered town or city as a resource.

A blasphemer could, and often did, cause people to question the ruling class' right to make laws and inforce them. This inevitably resulted in violent riots and uprisings that could and did destroy entire cities, even whole regions. The insoluble instability in and around Jerusalem even today is no doubt the result of blasphemers. So the fears of the Pharisees were well justified, and the crime of blasphemy a very real and serious one. The crowd spat on Jesus not without good reason. He threatened not just what they believed, but everything they had; their land, their families, and all their possessions. Blasphemy was the worst possible crime against society.

Of course the message of Christ was meant to free people from such dependence on human law and human authority. But clearly they - society in general, then and arguably now - were not ready for that message. So they cursed Jesus, and punished him in the worst way they knew how. They sought to send a clear message of their own to any other would-be blasphemers out there thinking about challenging their faith in their law and authority.

Now comes my question: Am I, Joseph E. Duncan III, not if anything else, a blasphemer of our age? Was what I did not a direct challenge to the authority, laws, and belifs of our modern society? Did I not defile our societies most sacred symbol of purity and innocence as Jesus defiled his by entering God's temple and violently desecrating what he found there? Christians say he was, "righteously indignant" and not "angry" (which would be sinful). I too believe I had the right to do what I had done. By attacking children so blazenly and vilely I was overturning the tables where modern lawmakers trade coin for beliefs (i.e. by selling false idols; ideas such as "justice" and "liberty" that have no value or even definition outside of human intellect) in order to hypocritically line their own pockets with gold.

Let me be more specific: They make laws against physically loving children (i.e. pedophilia) then raise taxes to "inforce" their laws. But where does that money go? Nearly all of it goes into the pockets of lawmakers, lawinforcers, and lawyers - the Pharisees of our day. Of course they genuinely believe in the importance of what they do, as did the Pharisees. And I am and had every intention of being as much of a threat to the authorities of this world as Jesus did to his. Now here's my question to all you so-called Christians out there who think you know the Will of God and the mind (or Message) of Christ just because of what you read in a barely decipherable "holy book", or, more likely, because of what somebody else read and told you about: Isn't spitting on me, the same as spitting on Christ?

I'll wait for your answers, and welcome all attempts to do so. Just please try to keep in mind that everything I wrote above was (is) intended to solicit thoughts, and questions (yes, doubt) about what you believe. So if your answer is some rote quotation or paraphrasing of what you learned in church, then don't bother answering at all. I want to hear from your heart and soul what you really think about all this. There are some Christians out there who can do this, though they are rare, and only mistakenly identify with other Christians. The ones of which I speak might be called True Christians, and I have discovered evidence of their existence in things I have read from various variations (denominations) of Christian beliefs. Ninety-nine point nine percent of Christian literature is garbage, but if point-one percent of what Christians write shows evidence of real understanding of Christ's real message (a message that I nor any man is worthy to convey - not even those who knew Jesus personally) then there must be hundreds of thousands of Christians out there who understand what I'm asking. And if only one of those sends me an honest answer (not an answer that I already think I know; I don't have one) then I will consider the last six hours I spent writing this (after months of contemplating it on and off) well worth the time God gave me to do it. And if you can honestly tell me why I am not "like Jesus", then hell, maybe I'll actually learn something - I'd really like that!

Creepy Commercials

Okay, I can't suppress this any more, and I can only hope I'm not the only one who feels this way.

The commercials on TV for eHarmony.com are creepier than an old man in the kiddy-pool at a public park. And I'm talking about all of their commercials, not just one or two of them.

That old man, Dr. Warren, who founded eHarmony and insists on being in all the commercials, is the quintessential creepy old man. And the way he interjects himself into the middle of supposedly ideal romantic relationships makes me cringe every time I'm forced to see it (when flipping channels for example). Not to mention how he slides like a genuine sleazeball into the seat across from that hopelessly pathetic woman at the speed dating table. I always imagine him saying, "Do you have young children?" I love women with children." everytime I see the way he sits down and hear that sleazy tone of voice he no doubt imagines to be sooting (as any true sleazeball would).

But then, maybe I'm just being biased (or outright prejudice) since I learned how eHarmony only caters to "upstanding" (i.e. Christian-like) people. It "filters out" the "undesirables" with its questionaires and only allows "acceptable" people to use their service. How creepy is that?

Pedophile Hypocrisy

Why do women shave their body hair? Why do they use make up to make their eyes look big, cheeks flush, and lips red? And when a woman wants to appeal to a man, why does she revert to a girlishly high voice including childish lilts and inflections complete with demure looks?

All of these things have one common factor; they all mimic the characteristics of sexually immature children. And yet in our culture we accept a woman's attempt to deduce men with immature traits as though it were perfectly natural, while at the same time we condemn the men who dare admit that they are sexually aroused by real children and call them pedophiles.

I'm not suggesting anything here about whether this is right or wrong. I'm only asking why it is - because it is.

(J.D. 8-17-13)

Real Freedom For Everyone, Even Me

Freedom from judgement is freedom from human law, freedom from hypocrisy, and freedom from suffering. it is also freedom from hate, and freedom from hell. Real freedom is the very salvation that Jesus promised, and the nirvana of Eastern enlightenment at the same time.

The teachings of Jesus were never meant to enslave us all over again with a bunch of new laws and ceremonies. The man from Nazareth told us as plainly as he could that he came with the news of a new law that freed us from human law, and human judgement, and human hypocrisy, and from hate and hell.

This new law was extremely simple to obey; in fact it is impossible to disobey once it was understood. It is a law that is directly "written" in every heart and every mind - though those who put their faith in human laws, and human beliefs, and human judgement (i.e. their own, or anyone else's), would be blinded to it.

Jesus sometimes called the law "charity", or as it is more commonly translated, "love" (though technically the word love, as defined and used in modern language, did not exist in any language until the spawning of the so called "romantic languages" long after Christianity was born). He also told us that the law was essentially ineffable (could not be properly expressed with mere human words), but could be expressed by what we do, and by what HE did. This is why what he did, i.e. "die for our sins", was so important. It was not some devinely magical event (a.k.a. "miracle") that set us free. It was a simple law of nature, hidden to us by our own vain faith in human intellect and human judgement, that spawns so many human laws that only serve to enslave us to a life of eternally repititious and self inflicted pain and suffering.

Freedom from hell is freedom from judgement, and from human law. I took my first step toward that freedom when I surrendered to the authorities of this world. I did not surrender so I could be judged - I surrendered because I knew beyond any more doubt that I would never be judged by men again. I became more free than I had ever been. And, I become freer and freer the longer I sit in this prison cell and meditate on the true meaning of freedom.

No matter how I am judged by men; no matter what punishment is imposed upon me (either life in prison or death); I will always be more free than the people who impose their judgement - this I sincerely believe; and proves my faith valid again and again. Real freedom is for everyone and anyone, perhaps even especially for me!

(J.D. 9-7-13)

Personal Sovereignty

In the natural order of the universe our greatest weakness is the very thing we believe to be our greatest strength. It is our blind and ignorant belief in personal sovereignty (or, what modern Christians call, "limited free will", though such a concept appears nowhere in the Bible and in fact is strongly contradicted by it). You don't need to be religious or even philosophical in order to be caught up by this lie. If you think for a moment that you are solely responsible for what you do, then you believe in personal sovereignty; and you are deceived.

There is a difference, of course, between personal sovereignty, and the divine sovereignty that Jesus gave his life attempting to disclose. While personal sovereignty is an impossible delusion that no one can ever have, divine sovereignty is very real, immediately present, and experienced by everyone and everything in the universe. It is our divine birthright that the Christ (and Buddha, and others) often spoke of. It says we are not responsible for just what we do; we are responsible for everything that happens - Everything!

When we realize this beyond intellectual understanding then we find the true meaning and infinite power of unconditional love that all men of Truth throughout history have spoken of. With just an ounce of faith in this Truth, mountains, even stars, will move. I've seen it happen within my own heart, and so will anyone who has the faith to believe.

(J.D. 6-3-13)

Proof That Smoking Doesn't Cause Cancer

It is only obvious that smoking does not cause cancer, because a lot of people who smoke never get cancer. And, I know this first hand because I used to smoke and I don't have cancer. Also, my father smoked all his life, and he doesn't have cancer either.

So, all the science that associates smoking with cancer is a bunch of hype generated by a bunch of sympathy seeking wackos that don't know what they're talking about. Obviously, there are completely detached from the real world.

And it's not just smoking and cancer that they know nothing about. It's just as obvious that an abusive childhood has nothing to do with adult criminal behavior. Like cancer, crime is the result of sinful thoughts and choices. Smoking is not a sin, so it has nothing to do with cancer. Only people who sin get cancer, and only people who choose a life of sin commit crimes. It's as simple as that. Really.

(J.D. 6-27-13)

Crime Fantasy Vs. Crime Fiction

There should be a clear distinction between fantasy and fiction. I know that literally they are the same thing, but in spirit I think they are completely different.

Fiction should be something that COULD be real, even if it isn't. And fantasy should be used for anything that completely defies reality as we know it, and could never be real.

If we distinguish between fantasy and fiction in this way, then it would be easier to separate the BS from good fiction in books and on TV.

For example, so-called crime fiction shows on TV, that depict impossibly intuitive cops against ridiculously psychotic criminals, could be readably identified as FANTASY crime shows instead. Then maybe there'd be a lot of fewer people who actually believe that some people are born without emotions, and others with an innate need to "serve and protect".

What I'm saying is that most crime fiction is as close to reality as dragons and unicorns. The "monsters" are no less impossible, and the "heroes" no more likely. Of course there are real monsters in this world, even human monsters (I certainly was one, in a careful sense), and real heroes as well, (I was just as certainly a hero too). But, the only monsters real heroes fight are the ones within themselves. I'll admit that some crime shows, and books, (more books than shows) endeavor to depict this, but few can even be said to approach reality in their attempts. The characters they create invariably end up being as impossible as winged horses, and they are usually constructed in the same way; by imagining various real things, such as wings and horses, then combining them in very unreal and impossible ways.

So, the next time you see some impossibly emotionless "psychopath" on TV being hunted and captured by ridiculously intuitive cops, just try to remember that it is pure fantasy, and in the real world the worst monsters and greatest heroes are the ones inside of all of us.

(J.D. 6-1-13)

Criminal Mentality

Cops routinely lie to criminal suspects in order to gain their trust and trick them into confessing. Thy system then uses any information thus dishonestly obtained in order to "punish" the "criminal". If you doubt this, or don't realize the routine prevalence of this systematic deception, then all you need to do is watch some reality police show like "COPS" (to see how they lie to criminals on the streets), or "The First 48" (to see how it's done at the police station interviews), or "Jail" (to see how they use deception to manage inmates). And if that's not enough to convince you, then consider the reason behind the Federally required Miranda warning.

The lies are part of a police officers training, so it's not some sort of covert conspiracy that only a select few know about. But what few people do realize is the way this systematic deception ends up instilling a strong sense of betrayal and distrust in the people who are directly and grievously injured by it; the so-called "criminals". To see this you have only to imagine what it must be like, to be a naive and trusting young person, caught stealing, or with drugs, and some cop tells you that "things will be much worse if you're not honest". So you tell him the truth, only to learn later that everything you say is in fact used against you, and things were not "easier" because you were honest at all, but much much worse! Only a completely retarded moron wouldn't learn quickly and painfully not to trust the police. And that is the defining characteristic of the so-called "criminal mentality" that directly leads to and supports all the other sub-characteristics and traits of said same mentality!

It's just one more example of how our so-called "criminal justice system" promotes the very crime it purports to protect us all from. Everyone knows the direct relationship that "criminal mentality" (distrust of authority) has on crime. It is a well publicized and oft quoted relationship that the police themselves use perversely to explain the necessity of their authority in the first place. They claim that because of such "anti-social" people, a "police force" is required to keep order in modern society (though they usually associate said "order" with "law" by calling it "law and order" in order to promote the concept and status of "law" as well, implying that without law there would be only dis-order - i.e. chaos - a claim that natural history belies by the way).

This should all come as no surprize. It is, after all, the exact same mechanism of social control that the Catholic church has used since Rome turned to religion as a means of social control via control of "the Truth" (i.e. deception).

Zimmerman's Justice

People who protest the Zimmerman trial verdict seem to forget that our justice system was never designed to protect citizens from the injustice of other citizens (i.e. crime). It was primarily intended to protect citizens from the injustices of the state.

If a man goes free due to a lack of evidence against him, that does not in any way mean that justice has not been served. In fact, it only epitomizes what American Justice is supposed to be about, and what it should be about; protecting the citizens from the government, not necessarily from each other!

If we rely on the government for protection from each other, the we give it the power and control over our lives that the American Revolutionary War was fought to take back. They called it Freedom in 1776, but the protests we see today, are a clear sign that we have completely forgotten what Freedom means. In fact, the protesters are in essence demanding that the government take over their lives, their responsibility, and their freedom, all in the new name of their so-called justice.

(J.D. 6-15-13)

Social Amnesia

We forget. And, when we forget it is easy to substitute alternate truths in place of the ones we have forgotten - not just easy, but necessary. Because the one thing we rarely forget is that we once knew. And that leaves the door open for pride to work its twisted logic. We can't bear to admit that we lost control over something so directly and intimately linked to our sense of self; our memory.

Our sense of pride is, of course, derived from our sense of self. Or, at least, it is derived from our FALSE sense of self, the same self we associate with and that depends upon our memories, and other intellectual experiences.

So, when we forget, our ego panics. And before we even consciously realize what has happened, it fills in the memory gap with something false. Numerous published scientific experiments bear this out. But, science barely paints complete pictures. So, let me add some interesting details.

In 19th century America, it was a common practice for entire families to sleep together in one room, and even share the same bed. White Americans, collectively, have not forgotten this, what we have forgotten, and filled in with false perceptions that pass for morality, is what sleeping together as a family means.

It means that is was once common and unquestioned for bodies of all ages and relationships to be snuggled up with each other in extremely intimate proximity under the cover of complete darkness. Do we really suppose then that when fathers, or brothers, or uncles, awoke, in the dark, with a sleep induced erection, and found a warm body pressing against their groin, that they didn't let nature take over?

Of course they did. But, did they talk about it the next day? Of course not. And did little Sussie, or Tommy, or uncle Joe, complain about the wet spot on their jammies the next day? Or that they dreamily half woke in the night to the sensation of someone dry humping their leg? It is more likely that they themselves enjoyed the intimacy and reassurance that such contact naturally engenders, especially between loved ones, not just lovers.

The children would not have understood enough to even realize what was going on, and absent all the "good touch, bad touch" lessons of today, they would have had no reason to question something that would have seemed completely natural to them. And the adults and older children (i.e. young adults) would have either pushed away from the "offender", or snuggled closer, and thought nothing further of it. It would have been something that happened a lot.

If you imagine homosexual behavior to be something that depends on intellectual intentions, then you have no understanding of sex at all. This is what we have forgotten as a culture. They are the kinds of things that don't get routinely conveyed with words, written or otherwise. They become lost to our cultural identity. And our cultural pride compels us to fill in the details with invented ideas of morality and so-called decency that end up being completely detached from reality. And from the truth we have forgotten.

This is just one example of how we substitute memory with distortions of the truth. The result is that today we must battle against a growing tide of violent perversions that are really the result of the truth's attempts to reassert itself. We are sexual beings. Our children are sexual, and our brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, aunts, and uncles are sexual too. The only reason we see so many women and children getting violently raped and murdered today is because we have forgotten these truths. And, out of pride, we try to supplant the truths with laws and moral inventions that cannot replace them, and certainly never suppress them. Our children suffer, and we all suffer, because of our pride, and our arrogance. The road to hell should be call Amnesia.

(P.S. I'm not trying to suggest that we should teach our children that they are sexual by nature. That probably wouldn't be any better than telling them that they're not. But, I do think that if we just stopped lying to our children, and ourselves, about our true nature - sexual and otherwise - that nature itself would remind us of everything we need to know when we need to know it.)

(Originally written by Joseph E. Duncan III on May 14, 2013)

P.S. If you doubt that humans naturally enjoy all kinds of sex, homosexual, pedophilia, etc... then study history - not the history they teach in highschool - but the REAL history of sex. And again, I'm not trying to justify anything... the Truth needs no justification, and will speak for itself no matter how much we try to forget it.

Simple Logic

The question of free will can be indisputably answered with direct and simple logic.

Let us agree that if an event (i.e. behavior, thought, speech, etc...) has a cause other than "free will", then said event is determined by said cause, and is hence said to be "predetermined", and not "free willed".

Now let's extend this understand directly to a given sequence of events. If in a given sequence of events each event is directly determined by its predecessor, then the entire sequence is predetermined. Inversely, and more significantly, if any event in the sequence is not determined directly by some preceding event then the entire sequence that follows this "free event" is no longer predetermined, but is in fact determined by the so-called "free event".

This "free event" could easily then be called "free will", but I'm not going to argue nomenclature here. Instead I will simply point out that if an event has no determinable cause, then it is technically a random event.

If you take the time to openly reflect on this simple and irrefutable logic then you will no doubt get yourself quickly tied up in all kinds of logic loops and contradictions. For example, if every event has a cause, then what was the first cause? Or, if a "free event" is really random, then what is "free will"? But, if you reflect long enough the one, and only possible, solution should become apparent.

"Free Will" is neither random, nor predetermined. Instead, it must be determined by an INFINITE sequence of causes. In other words, there is no "first cause", nor will there ever be a "last event". Any other conclusion is not only irrational, but, in my view, completely insane.

I have been contemplating this philosophy of infinite cause for a long time, and a lot of dissallusion and new understanding has resulted, which tells me it's worth hanging onto and contemplating even more. It may very well be the "keystone of understanding that completes my bridge to enlightenment... but, then maybe not.

Methinks, the key to knowing God is simply finding a way of comprehending infinity - and logic will always fail in this quest. But, what you do when it fails is what determines your progress. Do you give up, like most people, or start over, and over, and over again, each time changing one small thing. Like evolution itself, we may fail a thousand, even a billion times, but as long as we are willing to keep failing then we will never be a failure.

(J.D. 6-15-13)

Understanding Shame

I have said in the past that I am not ashamed of the terrible things I have done in the past. I later realized, and blogged, that as much as I wish I had no shame I could not upon honest introspection deny that it was there.

So, I decided to "wear my shame openly" in the hopes that it would help me become a better person by teaching me whatever it was given to me to teach. This decision has helped me by way of finding new levels of genuine inner peace that had always alluded me in the past. It was as though it wasn't the shame that disturbed me deep down, but only the denial of it.

I'm only realizing now why this would be so. After all these years of living with my shame out in the open, where I could keep a constant eye of consciousness (or "light") on it, I have come to know and understand my shame as never before possible. And I see clearly now that shame is no more than a learned response to the very natural fear of social rejection. In fact, the fear of social rejection and shame are almost one and the same thing, and in effect very difficult to distinguish from each other once this level of understanding (i.e. self honesty) has been achieved. But the difference is an important one, and one that only becomes apparent when we finally learn to accept our shame.

In fact, accepting our shame is what makes our fear of social rejection - shame's true cause - become apparent, because we only experience said fear as shame when we deny it and run from it!

Yes, I'm saying now that shame is no more than the fear of social rejection, denied. As soon as I brought my own shame into the light of consciousness and no longer denied it, it became no more than the natural fear of social rejection. And though I felt this change in understanding at the time, I did not have the words for it until now. But, now that I do have the words, and have put them down here, they "feel" right.

(J.D. 6-14-13)

Faith In The Mystery

Fear and ignorance go hand in hand. One will never be found without the other. Fear causes ignorance, and ignorance causes fear. Together they are the parents of hate, all hate. This is a key principle that can help us unlock so much understanding inside of ourselves. It gives us a means to overcome all our fears, and our ignorance at the same time.

Well, "means" might not be the right word. It's more like a hint that can lead us to the means. The means itself is a mystery - in fact, it is THE Mystery that the Christian Bible calls "God in man", but also goes by many other names around the world and throughout history. It implies faith and understanding the same way that certainty implies fear and ignorance. But, even though it is by definition, a mystery, it is 100% available to everyone at all times. The hint tells us which direction we must look to find it (i.e. inward), that is all. But, it can be found - or, rather, it will find us, if we only have faith in the Mystery.

(J.D. 6-14-13)

The Good Fight

It doesn't bother me, or even surprize me, that some people see me as something less than human. I completely understand the need to try to separate ourselves from things we don't understand. It's much easier to deny our connection to reality, and to each other, than it is to face the truth; that we are not only just connected, but inextricably intertwined.

Denying our intimate relationship with anyone we meet is a survival mechanism. In nature it provides the premise for evolution. It establishes a boundary of conflict necessary for a struggle that results in adaption and growth as a species.

So when someone insists that I am an "evil monster" (because of the things I did in the past) and I don't deserve to live, all they are really doing is establishing a basis for conflict that will, I believe, ultimately result in our growth, together.

I'm not saying they are right. But, neither are they wrong. So long as one person sees me as a monster, then for that one person that is exactly what I am. It's not up to them, of course, to resolve the conflict they create; nature will take care of that all by its self, one way or another. That's what I genuinely believe, and it is why I can find peace even in the midst of extreme conflict. I know that in the end we are all fighting the same fight, and I like to think it's a good one.

(J.D. 6-16-13)

Love Discriminates

Unconditional love is not the same as indiscriminate love. True love - unconditional love - DOES discriminate. But, not against race, religion or psychological profile. It discriminates against fear, hate and ignorance; that is all, and that is enough.

Breath and Listen

Every thought, or feeling, or any experience that a person has is as unique to that individual as their body. Even though we have many thoughts, feelings, and experiences that seem the same for us as they are for other people - the so-called, "common experiences" - in truth, our experiences are as uncommon as the pattern of blood vessels inside our eyes. And this is no small or unimportant distinction. In fact, the presumption of common experience is a major cause of misunderstanding and conflict in our world. Only when we learn to see each other as wholly unique from each other will we ever be able to see the single common factor that binds us as One. Only then will there be true peace and harmony. Only then will all suffering, injustice and fear come to an end. Only then will death be defeated (i.e. not by any medical or scientific breakthrough!).

Everything that I've asserted in the above paragraph must be perceived directly. You will not understand by taking any word for it. That's what faulty religions all have in common; they want you to take their word for the truth. But the one true religion (which can be found, surprisingly, at the core of the faulty ones) never demands that you believe anything that you don't already experience directly for yourself. This is the common experience of Life itself, which comes before all other experiences, and is in fact the source of all experiences.

It was this prime (or primal) experience that I recognized for the first time in my life literally seconds before I was about to commit my eight murder. It caused me to atop killing and turn myself in. And even though every aspect of my experience with this "Living Truth" is perfectly consistent with historical records - especially religious writings - it is still so alien to our ability to grasp with our "logical" or "rational" minds that the so-called "Justice System" - which desperately pretends to be logical and rational - cannot comprehend why I stopped killing and surrendered to the faulty authorities of this world.

What they could not see, and will never comprehend, is that it was not man's faulty authority that I surrendered to. It only appears as though I have surrendered to man's authority to those who cannot see the One True Authority of which I have since so often written.

I do not fear death because I know, through direct and personal experience, that my last breath will be no less miraculous, and no less alive, than my next breath today, or even my first some 50 years ago. I die with every breath I take, and am reborn each time. I know this, not because it is written by men (which it is in nearly every religious and philosophical text), but because I am experiencing it right now. And so can you. You have only to look past your thoughts, your feelings, and even your physical experiences, and experience the experiencer just once to know what I'm trying to say; to know what men have been saying for thousands of years; to know what any child can tell you with a look, and a smile - if only we listen.

Experience vs Understanding

Everyone has heard stories from people who claim to have visited other worlds not at all like our own and apparently not limited by physical laws. Some claim that they visited heaven after they died then came back to life (and back to the physical world) after meeting Jesus, God, angels or dead people. We have also heard stories about visits to our world from angels or other beings as well. Most of these stories involve some sort of message being conveyed from this other world, or worlds, to our own world.

Our history is permiated with such stories, and most of our religions are based upon them. So clearly they are important. But given that no two independent sources ever tell truly coinciding stories - they are consistently inconsistent - what are we to believe? Should we pick and choose? Or just ignore them all? Well, here is a solution that I think makes perfect sense, and yet is seldom considered simply because it might be too obvious.

Instead of looking to what we experience - either personally or vicariously - for insight into the nature and source of our existence, we should look at our personal and innermost understanding of things instead. This is commonly called intuition (though emotional experience is often confused with intuition. especially when it is consiquetly rationalized, it is not the same thing).

I am speaking about genuine intuition; the kind we typically ignore in the face of our experiences, emotions, and reason. It is impossible to define this in terms of experience, and yet experience itself is defined by it.

There is no easy way to say what intuition is, but I can - and often do - say what it is not. My only point here though is not to harp on what intuition is, or isn't; but, rather to just point out that the big mysteries in life don't seem so mysterious at all, when you stop relying on experience, and hence judgement, to try to understand. Looking to experience, whether they are "real", "emotional" or "spiritual" (e.g. dreams too) only confuses things, because all experiences are mere eminations (as proven by science and romanticized by poets), or dreamlike. So experience, not even so-called "reality", cannot be relied upon to inform us of our true nature, or the true nature of our existence or origin.

I hope this makes sense, because it is an important and fundamental concept that relates directly to the source of all confusion and, hence, suffering. the more we look to our experiences for understanding the more we suffer from confusion. The more we trust the source of all experience, the more we grow toward peace and understanding. I'm not saying anything different here than what our sages (Jesus, Buddha, etc...) have been saying all along. I'm just repeating an age old message, in hopes that you will hear.

The Devil's Twisted Logic

I just heard a man (supposedly educated with a doctorate in theology) preaching on TV that, "... if God were in control of everything we do then we wouldn't be able to convict a rapist, or a child molester". This caught my attention even though the ignorance of a such a statement seems obvious to me. So, I turned back to the offending channel (I was flipping channels when I heard the statement and had flipped past the channel as soon as I saw a man preaching; what he was actually saying didn't register until a second later), and I listened for a moment more to what he was saying.

I'd heard this kind of half-reasoned logic before coming from Christians and other self-righteous zelots, but never applied directly to child molesters and rapists - a subject most preachers seem to have enough sense to steer clear of; but not this guy.

He continued his argument in the classic and extremely predictable way of using Christian scripture, taken completely out of context and interpreted to mean what it doesn't even begin to say in a context, to support his erroneous logic. Specifically, he asserted that the Bible says "if... if... if... only IF we obey God, are we saved.". But the Bible, in context, says that if we obey God, then we will know we are saved - obedience to God is an indicator of salvation, not a method of obtaining it (by context I mean the repeated message throughout the Bible, and especially emphasized in the new testament by Paul and John, that salvation is by grace alone; the Bible states clearly and plainly that no one can choose to be saved, God chooses us). I'm just saying what the Bible says directly (see Romans 11:6, Ephesians 2:8, Titus 2:11 and 3:7, just for starters), not necessarily that I agree with it (I do, and I don't, but that's a different matter).

It just amazes me that people accept such garbage without stopping or even trying to think for themselves. You'd think that in matters concerning their "eternal soul" they'd make some effort to think through the logic. If God is in control of everything we do, then he's the one "convicting" the rapists and child molesters too! It makes no sense to just go half way with the logic, and then use twisted Bible scripture to back it up. But that's exactly what I saw this "doctor" doing, and it only took me about 30 seconds to confirm it, and continue flipping channels.

I found nothing else worth watching either, so I wrote this instead.

PS: If you consider the Bible to be an authority on such matters then you might be interested in reading Romans Chapter 9, where St. Paul discusses and defends the absolute sovereignty of God over every choice we make. See especially verse 16-20, Paul couldn't have been any clearer, and yet amazingly so many people still buy into the Devil's Twisted logic, and believe we have the ability to defy God's will!

A No Brainer

I'm not sure if I had said this before or not, but it is a fundamental and important truth with regard to the achievement of ultimate understanding; so I will state it here as plainly as I can, and hope it will perhaps provide a passage for someone to find their way around the class of deception it has the power to dispel.

The ultimate truth - regardless of what it is understood to be - must be attainable (i.e. capable of being experienced, or understood) in the complete absence of intellectual capacity.

In fact, the only function intellect has in regard to the Truth is that it provides a false means of communication of the truth. This is why it is often said that the Truth can never be told, and that words can do little more than obscure it (unless those words aim to defeat words themselves, as these words, hopefully, do).

Again the ultimate Truth does not demand higher intellect to be experienced or appreciated. It just takes honesty, and perhaps a little faith (not in some fantasy or idea of the truth, but in Truth itself as an "unknowable", i.e. non-intellectual, experience). But, whatever it takes, it can't be had by any effort - only by grace.

(PS: Someone might ask, "If this is true, then what should I do?" The answer is, no matter what you are doing, you are already doing exactly what you need to do in order to ultimately experience higher truth. That's what "having faith" in the Truth (a.k.a. "God") really means - and it is what allows us to truly love (hence, understand) our neighbour, no matter how much they seem to harm us.)

Dukha: A Sure Road To Hell

According to my understanding, Buddhism teaches that all suffering stems from our craving for pleasure. This causes an attachment to the unreal self; or tamba, that prevents us from being able to perceive what is real (i.e. nothingness, or nirvana).

Buddhist's tell us of the eight fold-path that helps us break away from tamba, and achieve enlightenment (i.e. direct awareness of nirvana). This path seems to essentially consist of denying oneself pleasure, much like the Chistian path of virtue. But, like the Christian path, I think the eight-fold path is often misunderstood and incorrectly followed.

The idea, as I see it, is not to deprive ourselves of pleasure, but rather to disconnect ourselves from it. Indeed, it may be useful to deny ourselves our every desire, but only as a tool for helping us recognize desire, and pleasure, for what it is, dukha. Dukha is the life of suffering that attachment to the unreal causes. But it is not necessary and in fact can be very harmful to deny ourselves pleasurable experiences if we only do so with the aim of enlightenment or salvation. To seek enlightenment for its own sake is a deceptive form of seeking pleasure. And hence, seeking salvation (in the Christian sense) is a sure road to hell, and only ends up leading to more suffering.

The idea of Buddhism, and Christianity when correctly understood, is fundamentally about balance; balance between desire and apathy, between that that is, and that that is not. It is a matter of seeking without effort, which is not something the intellectual mind can ever accomplish, though it can certainly interfere.

So, the idea of meditation, and/or prayer, is not to control our minds, or desires. But, it is to surrender control instead. And attempting to deny ourselves every pleasure, and suppress every desire, only ends up being another form of control that will lead to more dukha, and straight to hell.

(PS: Surrendering control over desire is not the same as surrendering TO desire - so be careful to make this important distinction.)

Evolving Crime

Crime evolves, like a living thing. It adapts, and changes in order to survive, and propagate. Modern crime would not survive in the past any more than a modern human could survive with the dinosaurs. Neither could past criminal behavior survive in our modern world. Imagine a cattle rustler attempting to rustle a herd today. He'd never get past the first fence.

And so crime evolves. Someone like Jack the Ripper would never have gotten past their first victim in today's world, not with even the most basic forensic techniques. Even Ted Bundy would not have gotten very far before he was made just another anonymous crime statistic rotting in a prison cell somewhere.

But rotting criminals don't solve the problem of crime. It only forces criminals to evolve. As laws get tougher, and detection gets more sophisticated, so do criminals. If criminals didn't evolve there'd be almost no crime at all these days. The so-called war on crime follows the pattern of escalation that precedes war, not the destructive chaos that defines war. Real wars only come AFTER the escalation (and is unfortunately all we have to look forward to if we allow the escalation to continue).

Soon, criminals will be compelled (by "tough on crime" laws) to commit crimes so heinous and sophisticated that what i did will look almost innocent (I raped and killed four children, and killed three other people, an entire family, that I perceived as, "in my way"). Soon men will attack adults with children right out in the open in order to fulfill fantasies that are shaped by the very social mechanisms purported to stop such crimes. Attacking the means of crime while ignoring the motivation only compells the criminal to find some other means. Where there is a will there is always a way.

If I Could...

I would rather worship the devil created by God, than a god that created the devil.

(Fortunately, I know better than to worship either.)

The Bad Guy Affirmation

"I am bad, and that's good.

I will never be good, and that's not bad.

There's no one I'd rather be than me."

Wreck It Ralph

Me After All

I have attempted to say this before, but I have yet to be satisfied with my words; as usual. So, I will try it again and hope I can be at least a little more clear.

The reason I stopped murdering and raping to get revenge on what I perceived to be (and still perceive to be) a morally corrupt social system, was not because I realized that what I was doing was wrong. It was because I realized that what I was doing was pointless, and futile.

I wanted revenge before I had this "epiphany" (as it has been dubbed in recent court proceedings concerning my crimes, and the reason I stopped killing even though I could have easily continued). But something made me change my mind. I no longer wanted revenge, or forgiveness. In fact, I suddenly no longer wanted anything at all, except for the Truth to be known.

But, unlike most who want the "Truth" to be known, I realized that it was not a truth that only I knew, or one that I had to convey somehow. Instead, I realized to the core of my being that The Living Truth - as I have since often referred to it - can, and does, reveal itself to everyone, at all times.

In other words, I realized that the Truth was infinitely greater than me, my life, or anything I could possibly think, much less convey with words. I also realized that my entire life's experience was only an infinitesimally small part of that greater Truth. And yet, as a part, my life was no less, and no more important than anyone else's life. Suddenly, the naked little girl standing in front of me, whose skull I was about to crush with a large rock that I was holding over my head in preparation for the killing blow when this "epiphany" came to me... suddenly her life was equal to my own, even superior in certain ways.

But, not equal in the mathematical sense. Her life, and my life, were equal in the absolute sense. I suddenly saw, or realized, that she and I were one and the same in the "eyes" of the infinite Truth. That is why what I was doing - killing her to "send a message" to those who had so injustly hurt me when I was yet just a child (i.e. society) - became a pointless and futile jest. I could no longer send my "message" because I could now see through this understanding - through "the eyes of the child before me" (Shasta, as I have oft poetically claimed) - that the intended recipient of my "message" was ultimately me!

I saw not only that I and Shasta were one, but that we are all One. So killing her in order to hurt society no longer made any sense to me at all. And killing me now, in the name of justice, makes no sense to me either. I can see how it makes sense to someone who cannot see the Oneness, though. And that's why I don't blame them for wanting to kill me. They are me after all! And the message they are trying to send is for their own ears to hear someday, hopefully.

The System's Dilemma, As I See It

During the competency hearing last month some twelve or so doctors testified on the question of my sanity. All of them, both for the defense (who claimed I was insane) and for the government (who claimed i was sane), concluded that I was not malingering (faking symptoms or being dishonest), and all of them also agreed that all of my decisions, both legal and otherwise, were inextricably intertwined with and based upon, my unique belief system. But the defense doctors said my belief system was psychotic and delusional, while the government doctors all claimed it was idiosyncratic, but perfectly rational.

While my full "belief system", as they call it, is complex and admittedly difficult for me to articulate, there are certain aspects of it that clearly and directly effect the so-called "choices" I have made in regard to my case, and hense directly relate to the question of my so-called "legal competence". For example, the decision to represent myself and and to waive the appeal of the several death sentences ordered against me.

Unlike most defendants who make such choices, I did not imagine that I could do a better job representing myself than my attorneys, nor did I desire to die, or otherwise seek some personal objective in any regard. I only wanted to "let the Truth speak for itself" and not "interfere with the process". It was consequently this Truth - with a capital "T" - as I see it, that became a focal point of the competency hearing.

The question the court must answer is: Is Mr Duncan's understanding of "the Truth" delusional or rational? And therein lies the Systems dilemma. If my understanding of "the Truth" is rational (which a finding of competence would assert) then it is rational to view the System as "an evil entity with an intelligence and will of its own" that cannot be "outsmarted on its own terms" and can only be overcome by submission to an even higher "intelligence" which I incountered directly "on the mountain" just hours before I turned myself in. This was the "epiphany" that I have often spoken of since my arrest in 2005, which also became a major focus of the competency hearing.

Was my "epiphany" a rational choice, or a psychotic event? If the court decides that it was rational, then it also admits that the System itself can be rationally perceived as "evil". And if the system can be rationally perceived as evil, then shouldn't we be questioning the system's competence, instead of mine?

I can only hope that the significance and importance of this question, as derived above, is realized by those who would pretend to judge. It is a question that strikes at the lying heart of the System, and has the potential, if asked and answered honestly, of exposing the true nature of the Beast, and bringing about a revolution in the way we all think about ourselves, and our roles in this world. And that is what my "belief system" is all about!

The Color of your Soul

A person cannot change their psychological makeup any easier than they can change the color of their hair or skin. They can dye their hair, and tattoo their skin, but that doesn't change the nature of these things any more than behavior therapy or changing a habit changes the nature of the person.

So to judge someone for the way they think, ie. the color of their soul, is no better than judging them for the color of their skin, or other physical attribute. In many ways it is the ultimate form of prejudice, and incidentally one that literally defines most religious institutions and that causes most of the misery in this world.

I'm Baaaack!

I'm back on Federal death row in the Terre Haute, Indiana US Penitentiary. I was gone for about ten months for the court ordered "retrospective" competency hearing in Boise, Idaho. Because of all the moving around for the hearing, not to mention apparent interference by BOP authorities, I have not been able to make updates to this blog as often as I would have liked. But, now that I'm back in Terre Haute I hope to be able to continue posting and improving this blog.

Am I A Nut?

My lawyers claim that I'm psychotically delusional. The government says I'm not. I think they're both right and wrong at the same time. There is definitely something seriously wrong with the way I think, perhaps even psychotic (whatever that means). It was only because I realized this that I was able to turn myself in and stop killing.

But I also think that most people suffer from the exact same "sickness" that I do; except that it manifests itself in different (i.e. more "socially acceptable") forms.

For example, I thought that I had the right to rape and kill because of tremendous pain and loss that I suffered when I was virtually a child and as a direct result of the systematic betrayal I experienced as a trusting teen. And, of course, "society" (most other people) see ME as the "betrayer", and they think THEY have the right to persecute and kill me because of the pain and loss I caused.

Just as I once completely ignored or minimized my own role in causing the pain and suffering I experienced, so "society" (in general) now completely ignores and minimizes its role in the carnage that has been (and is still being) wrought. In both cases the roles we played (society and myself) were directly responsible for the "evil" that ensued. So, we are both (all) directly responsible for what I did, but no one is to blame!

That's what I realized the night before I turned myself in. I realized that I was wrong to blame society, or anyone, even myself, for what I was doing (or had done). This realization opened the way for the greater realization I had the next day that caused me to throw down the rock I was about to kill eight year old Shasta with, take her home (back to Cour d'Alene, Idaho), and turn myself in. But, I didn't actually think, "I'm wrong". I actually thought, "There's something wrong with me". In a sense, I realized I was a nut.

So, when this so-called competency hearing began, I told my attorneys this. I've known I'm a nut since I turned myself in. But I also think we are all nuts. So, it seems pretty nutty to me that a bunch of nuts are calling me a nut. And even nuttier still that a bunch of nuts are claiming that I'm not a nut.