Lies, And More Lies

I generally don't follow B.S. that most people call “news”, and I don't see very many articles or “stories” about myself or my crimes at all. So, the only time I read about myself is when a friend sends me an article that they found interesting (usually because of some new depth of untruth and deception concerning my crimes or my past that they think shocking or “amazing”). A recent example, and the first article I've personally seen about myself in several years, though I'm told there have been a few, is this one from the Grand Forks Herald.

The article starts off with a bold and telling lie that sets the pace for the rest of it. It claims that I was the subject of a manhunt for weeks before I was recognized at the Denny's restaurant in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho. This contradicts not only the known facts in the case, but it is also the first time I have seen anyone make such a claim. In other works, there is no source for this so-called “information” other than the writer's own imagination; which makes me wonder exactly what the writer was imagining, or more pertinently, what was she trying to get her readers to imagine? (Hint: A witch-hunt can't be a witch-hunt unless there is some sort of hunt to begin with; the important implication being that it's a darn good thing we have the state (i.e. church) officials to hunt down and protect us from such evil monsters). Never mind that the article goes on to contradict itself toward the end when it quotes the lead investigator in the case, Brad Maskell, as saying that he had no idea who “Joseph Duncan” was when I was arrested; I wasn't even on the “radar”.

Portraying criminals as inhuman monsters is an important function of the marketted media outlets, such as newspapers, T.V. news, and such. Being on good terms with the police and other government agencies is critical to the media's ability to obtain the raw information that they package and sell to make a lot of money. So it's crucial that they package the information in ways that will please the police (and other government officials) lest their “resources” dry up. Of course the unfortunate result of this relationship is that the police (hence, the modern state church, which preaches a false religion of justice and freedom) end up controlling the news, not only how it is packaged, but what is and isn't reported as well. And I think that this article in the Grand Forks Herald is a nearly perfect example of what I mean.

And the marketed media's “relationship” with the police isn't the only controlling factor that determines what gets “reported” as “news”. In this article, for example, an NDSU school professor is quoted making more lies and false assumptions about me and my crimes. Professor Thompson, states (apparently without ever reading this blog), “(Duncan) wants to be heard and a true psychopath wants the spotlight on them, it's true narcissism...” If he read this blog at all then he might note that I have consistently shunned “the spotlight” since my arrest, refusing to talk any reporters or accept interviews by several nationally well-known T.V. shows. Every T.V. Show, fiction and non-fiction, that has ever been made about my crimes --- and there have been several --- have all been made without my cooperation or even knowledge (I didn't even find out about the ones I know until many years after they were made, and I have yet to read any of the books about my crimes that I know about either).

    And the reason --- the only reason --- I write for this blog is out of obligation, not desire, to tell the truth, because so many lies and distortions reign in the popular media (i.e. the “spotlight”). This blog gets almost no attention from the media at all, and that's the way I like it. Just because I'm making the truth (as I know it) available on the Internet doesn't mean I'm out for attention. I'm not.

And the article goes on to quote Professor Thompson making several more equally ignorant remarks intended to dehumanize and demonize me (and people like me) in order to justify doing inhuman things to me (and people like me), apparently not realizing that it was precisely such inhuman treatment that drove me to do what I did (rape and kill several children). I didn't do it for pleasure, I did it for justice --- I was trying to bring my life back into balance. I dehumanized and even demonized the people I attacked also, in exactly the same way (with words and self-righteous delusions) in order to justify what I did. So, I'm not blaming Professor Thompson for his ignorance here. I'm only pointing it out as something no different than what I did; no different than what all humans do: struggle for a sense of control in their life.

Thompson says that “the mark of a true psychopath [is their ability to convince] even trained professionals that they're okay.” It only amazes me that people are taken in by such nonsense today as they were back when people like Thompson were touting “the mark of a true witch” instead. And what he is saying is nonsense, because if a “true psychopath” can convince even “trained professionals” that they are “okay” (not “psychopaths”), then how does anyone know who is a “psychopath” and who isn't? The implied answer is obvious; just look for the “marks”, right? Then, burn the witch!

[J.D. Nov 6, 2015]

P.S. This same article also accuses me of rationalizing my “horrific crimes against children one minute” and then pleading for “love and acceptance the next”. I suppose if someone only skims over this blog, looking for what they want rather than seeing what is actually here, then they could interpret even this post as an attempt to “rationalize” my crimes, as well as a “plea for love and acceptance”. But, since my arrest in 2005, when I surrended myself to the police in Coeur d'Alene voluntarily, full well knowing I wasn't even on their “radar”, I have never made an excuse for my crimes, nor pleaded for mercy, much less “love and understanding”. Even in court I refused to accept any “plea deal” that benefited me. In Federal court, where I got the three death sentences, I plead guilty with no deal at all, complete against my attorneys advice --- and later, during the sentencing trial, I asked to represent myself in order to give the prosecutors what they demanded in order to not put eight-year-old Shasta on the witness stand. That is hardly something someone who is trying to rationalize their crimes and seek love and acceptance would do. I told the judge, and the jury, in no uncertain terms, that they should do whatever they thought they must, and that I would have no part in their decision (by trying to pursuade them in any way to kill, or not kill me).

And I challenge anyone to find a single post in this blog where I “plea for love and understanding” for myself. If such a plea is to be found here, then it is for those reading the blog, not for me.

As for “rationalizing” my crimes? I have admitted over and over, both in this blog, in court, and everywhere else, that there is no excuse for what I did. And closest I ever come to rationalizing my crimes at all is when I point out that there is likewise no excuse for strapping my body prone to a cross and pumping poison into my heart. I did what I did because I am a man --- a human being --- and those who judge, condemn, and murder me are no different. The proof is in what they do, and the justifications they craft for doing it. That's all I have ever said, and it is no rationalization. It is the plain truth, that needs to be loved and understood within ourselves if we are to ever stop raping and killing each other.

Nor am I preaching some delusional message of love and acceptance that I think I'm the only one who understands. I'm simply relaying the very reality that became apparent to me and caused me to literally throw down the rock I was about to kill Shasta with, and take her home instead. It is an ancient truth, older --- infinitely older --- than humankind itself: We are One, and Many, at the same time. Every religion that ever was, and is, is based on this primary truth (though it goes by many names and descriptions, it is universally recognized by those who look for the truth within themselves instead of in the world). So I'm not preaching anything new at all --- I'm only trying to let the truth speak for itself, by being as honest and open as I possibly can. I have no personal agenda other than that. And I'm more than willing to give my life, even my personal happiness, in exchange for serving this “Truth”. I'm not even sure why it is so important to me; but, I know it is important, because I have already given far more than my life, and my personal happiness, in Its name (though it doesn't even really have a name, I've called it many things from “the Living Truth”, to “I AM”, to “God”, or simply, “the Truth”). It doesn't matter what you call it, it only matters that you hear It calling you. I did, and I'm not special.

Injustice For One Is Injustice For All

I don't remember who it was, but some president, relatively recently, once said, in a famous speech to the Nation, that Americans have the “right” to freedom from fear, and freedom from violence (and crime in general as I understood it). What he was saying was that we have the “right” to government protection... and that should scare the pants off anyone who knows anything about the history of government power and politics; I know it does me!

Nowhere in the constitution, nor in any statement or speech given by our “founding fathers”, is there any mention at all of our “right” to government protection. In fact, the bulk of everything they did upon establishing the foundation of the United States of America was directly and explicitly intended to protect the people FROM the government. The laws that were written, and the rights that were invoked --- our “human right” --- were the right to live free, and to protect OURSELVES! Not only from government, but from each other also.

 

And yet today people openly and disparagingly speak of “criminal rights” as if that is all that the men who drafted the constitution and the Bill of Rights cared about. After a modern school shooting, or some other heinous crime, the commercial media gives voice to those who cry, “Why doesn't the government do more to protect us?” (or, more empathically, “...to protect our children?”). I would say that nobody ever asks, “Why won't the government let us do more to protect ourselves?” - except that people do ask that (the NRA for example), but the commercial media – for some “mysterious” reason, doesn't give them much, if any, voice at all.

It's ironic, and telling, that while all police organizations endorse more laws (“tougher gun control”, that insures they're the only ones with guns, for example), they always insist, amongst themselves especially, that they themselves are primarily responsible for protecting their family and loved ones, not to mention themselves. That's because they know first-hand that the police rarely protect anyone, and almost always show up AFTER the crime. Their primary “job” is catching criminals, not stopping them. The police know, also first-hand, that the best, and in most cases the only, person to stop a crime from happening is the person that the crime happens to; the so-called victim himself.

So, why do the police insist on more “police protection”, when they know they can't protect anyone? The answer should be obvious --- so they can keep getting paid for wielding power and calling themselves the “good guys”.

Nowhere does the constitution ever say that criminals have rights and victims don't. And yet, men who can't protect themselves or their families (because of their ignorant expectation of police protection) insist that criminals are somehow “given rights” that they don't deserve, while victims have none. And they push for laws that are supposed to “protect the victims”, even though they never stop to consider that criminals are victims too, and most victims are criminals as well.

If, instead of expecting the police, and/or government, to protect them, they became determined to protect themselves --- the way police do --- then maybe they wouldn't be so ready to attack and undermine the very “rights” that were originally meant to protect them from such hypocritical and self-serving government officials. Maybe instead they'd push for laws that prevented the government from stopping a man from protecting himself (such as “gun control”) and seeking his own justice (many states no longer recognize “self-defense” as an excuse for many so-called “crimes”, such as shooting someone in public, not to mention challenging somone to a duel, which, as you may well recall, was a common means of “justice” amoungst the men who first drafted the Constitution).

George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, John Adams, and the rest, understood that the most dangerous criminal of all was the one with the power of the people behind him. So they drafted the constitution, and then later added the Bill of Rights, “in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of [government] powers...” And today, George Bush, Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, and the rest, have all forgotten that crime isn't the problem; overzealous government is!

[J.D. Oct. 11, 2015]

P.S. The reason I think (and write) so much about justice (and injustice) isn't because I am a criminal trying to make excuses for my crimes. It's because in nature there are no “criminals”, and I believe there wouldn't be any in society either if we didn't invent them and then create the circumstances that cause the behavior we call crime to happen. In other words, I write this stuff not because I'm a criminal, but because I'm a man who sees no reason for crime at all. And I believe that when we understand how our current system promotes and propogates criminal behavior (mostly to justify government/police power and control, and taxation) that then we will find a way.

P.P.S. I don't advocate gun rights, or any other rights for that matter. I don't think it matters one lick what rights we are “given” or have “taken” from us. The thing that does matter is whether or not we understand our OBLIGATION to protect ourselves and our loved ones, including our country if need be (with, “if need be”, being the operative part of that last one). We are also obligated to seek our own justice, for as I have said before about taking justice into your own hands; there really is no place else where it belongs!

My Ignorance Defines Me!

In my early 20's, while I was in prison, I remember explicity realizing that I was defined more by what I didn't know than by what I did know. I remember thinking, "My ignorance defines me!" And I have often said as much since.

But, what does that mean? It's really rather simple. We are defined by our limitations, not our capabilities. If you think it depends on your perspective - as in, is the cup half-full; or half-empty? - then you're missing the point. The cup is not defined by its contents, but by its ability to place a limit upon its contents.

When we become aware of something, that knowledge becomes a part of us. And, it changes us. Which is to say, that the knowledge changes our "definition". But, the knowledge itself existed before we became aware of it, so it doesn't change. Only we change. But, if the knowledge (i.e. fact, reality, etc... whatever you want to call it) doesn't change, and yet our definition does change, then what has changed?

What changes is our ignorance! Something we were ignorant of becomes known to us. And thus, some of our ignorance is lost (be sure not to confuse ignorance with innocence here, they are not the same at all(1)). And it is this change in our ignorance that changes us, and changes how we are defined.

This is an important realization, because it helps us to genuinely respect our ignorance, and our limitations, rather than falsely boast of our knowledge and our capabilities. If my ignorance is less than another man's ignorance (i.e. I know something he does not) then realizing how we are defined by what we don't know rather than what we do, lets me more easily realize that my "knowledge" does not make me superior to the other man; it only changes my ignorance.

Being less ignorant is not the same as being superior. It is like being less blond, or less handicapped. It may give me some advantage, but it does not make me a better person. Of course, the same thing is true about having more knowledge. But, if you realize that all knowledge is really only the absence of ignorance then you might better be able to see that all people are fundamentally defined by the same thing; our ignorance.

(J.D. August 30, 2015)

Notes: (1) Ignorance is the act of ignoring something that may otherwise be known to us. So, ignorance always involves some effort, usually on an unconscious level. But, innocence is simply the absence of judgement, and hence requires no effort. So, in a very real sense, innocence is exclusive of ignorance; you can't be ignorant and innocent at the same time.

The Carcinogen of Justice

Throughout history, "law" has never been anything more than a social mechanism for protecting the interests of those with money. As such, it does little or nothing, and commonly less than nothing (i.e. by making things worse), for those with little or no money. This is as true today as it has ever been; and you needn't just take my word for it. Many books have been written detailing this very principle - written by highly respected and well known social analysts and philosophers, such as Noam Chomsky and Michel Foucault, not to mention historical greats such as Nietzsche and even Plato (1) (though I am forced to admit that most of these don't put it in so blunt of terms as I have).

People are conditioned to believe that without law, society could not funcion. In fact, the "rule of law" is considered one of the five factors that give rise to modern society (amoungst trade, agriculture, organized religion/government, and writing itself), if I remember my history correctly (and correct me if I'm wrong, but whatever error I may have made here will not effect my point: that we are taught that law is a prerequisit of society). I won't argue this point; society, as we know it today, certainly depends on law, much as a cancerous tumor depends on certain DNA sequences that are copied from one cell to the next.

My point? Perhaps laws, as we know them through history, are the very mutation in the natural sequence of human developement that promotes our unchecked population growth and consumption of natural resources. And, along with other mutations that promote societal developement (religion, etc...) this sequence of social events supports the unstable growth of the human population in the same way that a set of DNA sequence mutations promotes the unstable growth of cell populations in people who have cancer. It's not only possible, but even highly probable that I am right.

So, expecting the "law" to somehow "cure" itself, is a fool's gambit. It could happen, of course; after all, some cancers do manage to cure themselves, don't they? I just wonder what the odds are!

(J.D. August 30, 2015)

Notes: (1) According to my philosophy dictionary, Thrasymachus, who inspired Plato's philosophy of justice (i.e. "law"), defined Justiced as the "interest of the stronger".

The Problem With The Idealistic Life (The Christian Fantasy Life)

Christianity is a fantasy-based religion. Everything that Christians claim to believe (but don't really believe, judging simply by how they typically behave) is based on romanticised ideals that have little or no basis in reality. I challenge any Christian to show me otherwise. They might try pointing to their Bible as “proof”, but the problem with that is pretty obvious, especially given the academically established questionable origins of everything in it, not to mention the ridiculously fantastic and contradictory content.

So all Christians ultimately fall back on the “belief”-argument. They say that “God tests our faith” and demands (according to their Bible..) that we believe what “He” tells us to believe (according to their Bible..). But, if we believe in something that directly contradicts our experience and irrefutable evidence, then that's not belief at all; it's make-belief! And the only reason psychologists don't call Christians delusional is because they make a specific exception when defining delusional thinking that says if a person believes what their peers believe, no matter how much it contradicts the evidence of reality, then it is not a “delusion”. The DSM (the standard “Diagnostics and Statistics Manual” that all psych-doctors use for diagnosing mental illness, which I am quite familiar with because of the “competency” question in my death penalty case (I)) does not say what such fantasy-based-belief actually is (they only say what it is not..). They very carefully avoid defining it at all because the only definition that fits would be “mass delusion”, which wouldn't make the DSM very unpopular with Christians.

Of course, the problem with delusional thinking is well-established and documented. If you live your life according to beliefs that are not based on reality, then you must either spend a lot of time and energy defending and compensating for all the discrepancies that arise, or suffer the consequences. Ultimately, of course, the consequences, and all the blame for the consequences, ends up getting projected onto people like me, the “sinners”, or “demons”, or just “evil” in general.

So the idealistic Christian life is not only a fantasy and a lie; it is the source of more pain, suffering and misery in this world than hell itself could ever contain; it is the very crucible of hell! And that's why I criticize Christianity so often. It is not because I hate them, or judge them. I am only trying to expose their hypocrisy, and the hellish consequences of it.

[J.D. August 26, 2015]

Notes:

(I) The man who literally wrote the definition for “delusional thinking” in the DSM actually testified at my competency hearing a couple of years ago. He told the court that because my beliefs were not practiced by any known religious group, they were delusional. Since then I have found numerous writings that reflect and support what I believe, but as this man said, no organized religious groups; thank God!

Silencing The Wolves

I've been told there has been some media attention concerning this blog recently. It seems some “people” feel that a criminal like me should not be allowed to voice their views publically in such an unfiltered format.

I couldn't express the depth of such ignorance even if I tried. So, I won't. And, instead I'll simply comment on the reason why this kind of small-mindedness even exists.

These “people”, who would so gladly have the truth silenced just because it comes from the mouth of a “monster”, can't think for themselves. They depend on modern media to tell them what they currently accepted “trending” thoughts are for the day. So, the mere thought that their precious medium could be contaminated with “unpopular” ideas, is terrifying to them.

Of course, it's not just the modern media junkies who fear such exposure to “unpopular” ideas. This is the standard reaction that the “sheep” (herd animals) have anytime they sense that the herd-mentality might ot be as “safe” as they thought. It is the age old source of all censorship; “baaa baaa baaa!” the sheep cry!

“Silence the wolf!”

But, silencing the wolf does nothing to remove the threat. In fact, it is the silent wolf that the sheep should fear, for she is the one on the hunt.

And what about that comforting voice that guides the sheep to pasture; the voice that tells them where to graze, when to sleep, and how to mate; the voice that comes from atop of the hill, speaking in a language that the sheep will never comprehend beyond the short “soundbite” commands that tell the herd what to think? What about this voice that leads them, protects them, and assures them all is well? Isn't that the voice they should really fear? The one that feeds not on one or two weaklings or strays, but ultimately devours the entire flock! It is the voice of the most deceptive, dangerous, destructive, and ravenous creature that ever lived. It is the voice of the shepherd; a calm human voice that turns the younglings into lamb chops. It is the voice of the devil himself, and the greatest predator of all.

So, “Woof woof woof!”

I will not be silent, as long as I can speak, as long as I can warn, as long as I can remind the “sheep” that I am here, and that my kind will always be here, warranted by nature herself, to restore balance, and health to the herd, by exposing the truth, and ripping open the belly of those who deceive, and the minds of those who would be deceived. I remind the shepherds of this world, that no predator can tame the wilderness for long. And, as long as there is a wilderness, there will be wolves, silenced or not.

[J.D. August 14, 2015]

The Modern American Underclass

The process of rationalizing the unfair treatment of prisoners is generally supported by the ignorant masses. T.V. shows have always depicted “Law and Order” over “Crime and Chaos” as “Justice” (i.e. fairness). But, it isn't fairness at all. It is a big lie that only exists to conceal the cruelty of a mechanism (i.e. government) that lives solely to benefit a privileged class; a.k.a. the ruling class.

All societies have three classes, no matter how well concealed or glossed over they are. And the United States of America is no exception. These are; the underclass, the working class, and the ruling class. If you don't already know and recognize these classes, even in the U.S., then I suggest you educate yourself. (And since you are reading this on the Internet, there's absolutely no excuse for NOT educating yourself!)

The underclass has always been a thorn in the side of the ruling class. Most societies have dulled this thorn by implementing a system of slavery that attempts to derive some benefit from the underclass by brutal and direct control and oppression. Modern societies, which no longer depend on human labor to thrive, have found other ways to dull this thorn.

Have you ever noticed that as slavery (and serfdom, etc...) declined, the concept of “incarceration” rose? The correlation is no accident! And the fact that even to this day our prisons are filled with mostly “colored” people (the underclass) should be no surprise. (Of course, you don't have to be “colored” to be a part of the underclass. All you have to be is sufficiently different from the ruling class, and of no benefit to them.)

[J.D. August 9, 2015]

It's Not Fair, At All!

It's a well known fact that prisoners who think their imprisonment is unfair are far more likely to break the rules in prison, and commit new crimes after they are released. In fact, prisons commonly use this as part of their screening and classification process for prisoners when deciding security level and even parole eligibility. But doing so they are only treating the prisoners who already feel unfairly treated even more unfairly. This is a good example of how the system propagates the so-called "criminal mentality" that it turns around and uses to justify its own existence.

What if, instead of blaming prisoners for feeling unfairly treated, we did things instead to make them feel more fairly treated. Odds are they will then be LESS likely to commit more crime, and MORE likely to obey the rules in prison.

And, there are all sorts of ways to make prisoners feel more fairly treated. Some have been employed in the past, but only after prisoner behavior became so out of control that prison officials were forced to employ them. I'm talking about simple things like grievance proceedures, and disciplinary appeals. But, there are many more simple ways to make a prisoner feel more fairly treated, unfortunately most of them involve actually treating them more fairly. ystem itself The truth of the matter is that the reason most prisoners feel that they are being treated (and punished) unfairly is because in most cases they ARE! The system itself, of course, denies this. And by denying it the system justifies even more unfair treatment! The trick is simple; the system claims that most prisoners ARE treated fair, and the prisoners only think they are being treated unfairly because of their "criminal mentality". Therefor, the system is justified in treating the prisoners even more unfairly, all in the guise of justice. The idea of course is that if we punish them enough they should eventually "learn their lesson"; which is, of course, that they AREN'T being treated unfairly at all (even though they ARE!)!

How does that work? It doesn't, of course. What it does do is create the illusion of justice, all at the expense of more crime, more criminals, and more victims; just so the system can have more control and more power, and more money to do less, and directly cause more harm. All in the name of a false god it calls, "Justice".

(J.D. July 30, 2015)

The John Walsh (Witch) Hunt

John Walsh is the quintessental modern day witch-hunter, filled with hatred for imaginary monsters that he tries to make real with words and then projects onto those human beings who have been marginalized by the same social prejudices that Walsh himself so actively propogates.

I'm not saying that the men who rape and murder are not real. All I'm saying is that the only reason they do what they do is precisely because they are human beings, who have been psychologically and socially cornered into behaving so extremely by the very fear and ignorance that men like John Walsh propgate in the name of their false gods (such as “Justice” and “Innocence”).

If John Walsh had any idea of the number of rapes and murders that he has helped cause by pushing “creeps” and “cowards” further and further away from any hope of acceptance (and thus behaving acceptably) instead of boasting so self-righteously of all the men's lives he has destroyed and the handful of children he claims to have “saved” (i.e. children he “rescued” mostly from genuinely loving parents who lost custody for reasons they had no control over), then he'd probably throw himself from a bridge, like the inspector in Les Misérables. I can hardly think of anyone more responsible for even my crimes (I) than John Walsh himself. It was his show “America's Most Wanted” that goaded me more than anything else into lashing out for my own “Justice”. I was the “gun”, and John Walsh was the “finger on the trigger”!

[J.D. July 10, 2015]

Notes:

(I) I don't blame Mr. Walsh for what I have done any more than I would blame my finger for what it does. Blaming him, or anyone (even myself) makes no sense to me as I have tried to explain elsewhere in the Fifth Nail-blogs. When I say that John Walsh is “responsible for my crimes”, I only mean that he, more than most, has the ability to help end the cycle of violence. Not because of the fame and fortune that his own son's death has brought him, but because of the pain and guilt that he has buried inside, beneath all that fame and fortune. As I have often said, it is forgiveness that heals. And the more we are able to forgive, the more healing --- in ourselves and in the world at large --- there is that can take place.

The Principle of Forgiveness

Christian forgiveness requires some «sin» to be forgiven. But, in order for there to be sin, there must be judgement. Since there cannot be sin without judgement, Christian forgiveness implies judgement.

What is judgement though, but the opposite of forgiveness? Hence Christian forgiveness is a contradiction in itself; a hypocritical concept.

True forgiveness is precisely and simply the very absence of judgement. Judgement is merely an evaluation, or opinion, that is authoritative. And by «authoritative» I mean it has universal merit.

There can only be One True Authority. There can only be One True Judge. Only a being with infinite knowledge and understanding (a.k.a. Love) can have the Authority necessary to judge, or have an authoritative opinion about, anything!

That would be «God», of course; or «Universal Will» as I sometimes like to call it. But, no matter what you call It, It is the only Judge that has True Authority to judge anyone, or anything.

And even though «God» is the only Being with the Authority to Judge, «God» judges us not. We are Universally Forgiven! And that is the simple self-evident truth that every great religion has buried at its core.

People are the ones who bury this truth beneath religious dogma. They bury it because it threatens their desire for authority (i.e. power and control over other people) so they can judge, like God; and thus frequently in the name of God, or «godly idols», i.e. ideas that are infused with false authority, such as «justice» or «freedom».

So, True Forgiveness requires no worldly authority. It is «given» freely in the face of all man-made (and invariably false) authority. You don't need to «believe that Jesus Christ is your personal Lord and Savior», or confess that «there is no God but God» or «become One with the nothingness within». All you need to do is look past the superficial and hypocritical teachings of other people who claim to be «authorities», and find for yourself this self-confessing truth that every child knows (before they are taught to forget); that there is no sin but the sin we create by judging (i.e. claiming authority, or to know «right» from «wrong», or «good» from «bad», in any absolute sense).

«Judge not, lest ye be judged», is far more than a mere warning; it is a Universal Law, and the principle of forgiveness.

[J.D. June 26, 2015]

Implications of Infinity

No matter how big or how long or how far you imagine infinity to be, it is always infinitely bigger, longer, and farther. In fact, it is impossible to imagine things about infinity, but we never imagine infinity as a whole. Because even though everything exists in infinity, infinity itself does not exist.

I'm not saying there is no such thing as infinity. Nor am I suggesting that infinity isn't real. It's the only thing that IS real, actually. Everything that has a beginning, has an end; and if it has an end then it already has (ended) and is therefor not real. All «things» have a beginning and an end, so they exist in time and space. But, time and space itself has no beginning and hence no end. So, time and space, a.k.a. Infinity, does not exist; but it IS real!

To be sure, yes, I am saying that, that that is, is not; and that that is not, is. That is the implication of infinity, and it is a self-evident truth; though I admit, it takes an extremely open and receptive mind's eye to see it.

And the implication implies even more. If nothing that exists in time and space is real, and only time and space itself IS real, then anything and everything that is possible --- even the most high improbably --- DOES EXIST! It must only have a means to begin, which is to say that it must be possible, and that is all.

This means (i.e. further implies) that everything that exists, also exists infinitely. And if it exists infinitely then it is, of course, real after all!

How can this be? It sounds like a contradiction, but it's not. The contradiction only appears as an artifact of finite language. If you read these words with an open mind, and contemplate them, as one would contemplate the sound of one hand clapping, then the contradiction will eventually dissolve and only the Implication of Infinity will remain, after the words themselves surrender their meaning to you (i.e. become meaningless).

I'm implying, of course, the path to enlightenment. But, I am also stating an artifact o that path (a way of knowing that you are on the right path; the path of reality and truth, a.k.a. «the Way»). The artifact is this: if it exists, it is infinite; and if it is infinite, then it is real; and if it is real, it has no beginning and no end.

All suffering is infinite; this is «hell». And all pleasure is forever; this is «Nirvana» a.k.a. «Heaven».

[J.D. June 26, 2015]

Twisted Truths

This morning (Thursday, June 11, 2015) I saw a «viral video» on «Right This Minute» («The Viral Video TV Show») that showed two women fighting in a grocery store. In the video you could see a young boy (5 or 6 years old) moving around the outskirts of the fight, apparently the child of one of the women. In the version I saw this morning it seemed that the producers wanted to emphasize the presence of an innocent child forced to witness the violence. So, unbeknownst to me this morning they edited out parts of the video where the boy actually got involved in the fight (by hitting one of the women with a shampoo bottle, and even kicking her in the head while she was held down by his mother). They even had one of the female commenters say ever so empathetically, «Oh my word! And they're fighting like that in front of that poor child!» (or something similar).

I found out about the cut out parts when I saw the same video on «Inside Edition» just this evening. It showed the boy getting involved in the fight, as well as the mother telling her son to punch the other woman in the face while she held her down. It seems that «Inside Edition» had a different «slant» that they wanted to emphasize; that the mother was being a terrible mom for encouraging her son to violence. But, at least they spoke to the mother and got her side of the story (she claimed she was trying to teach her son to «not back down», and personally, I side with her).

The important lesson in all this? It is the oldest lesson of mass media, and one that is still often never properly learned: Don't believe what you see (or are told to see) on T.V. (or in the press, or on the Web, etc...). You'd think we'd know that by now, but a-parently not! ツ

[J.D. June 11, 2015]

SVU Flattery?

They say that mimicry is the highest form of flattery. I wonder if that applies when a popular T.V. show, like "Law and Order: SVU" makes an episode based on your crimes, the way they did mine. 

The episode I'm referring to was actually a rare two-parter, though only the first part (an entire episode) was dedicated to making a monster out of me so the SVU heroes could come to the rescue and save the little girl in the end. The second part (episode) was all about the aftermath caused in the first part.

Police fantasy shows like "Law and Order" are known to take their stories' ideas from real-life crime. But, of course, they rewrite the story to fit the theme of the show (i.e. "good guys" vs. "bad guys"), and suit the main characters' location. In my case, they made the semi-rural home that I invaded into an inner-city apartment, the kidnapped children's older brother (found murdered in the home) became an older sister, and instead of a loose pet dog alerting the neighbor that something was awry it was a loose pet bird.

Despite all the changes they made to make my crime appear in the hero's domain, the crime itself, and the criminal, were clearly copied from the news. The family's home was surveyed and invaded by a "monster" that murdered the parents and teenage sibling solely in order to kidnap the younger children to keep for his sexual pleasure. The children, a boy and girl the same ages as the victims in my crimes, were then taken to a remote location (an abandoned warehouse in the city instead of a forest in Montana) and repeatedly raped, until one day they were spotted in public and the SVU heroes were called in to the rescue.

In the T.V. version of my crime, however, the boy was killed publicly in order to allow the man to escape (briefly) with the girl. And then the girl was rescued later after the heroes sleuthed out the secluded warehouse and killed the "monster". 

It's not all the similarities to my crime (or crimes) that make this show interesting to me, it's the differences! Why, for example, did they choose a bird instead of two large dogs as pets for the victim family? Perhaps because large dogs would have made the "monster" appear bold, instead of cowardly and weak. And why did they depict the man as someone who uncontrollably lusts after sex with children? That is something I have never done. I have no problem at all controlling my sexual behavior and never have --- very few so-called "sex offenders" ever do, despite the "myth" made popular by shows like this. In the SVU fantasy world, the man is shown bragging about his many victims in video tapes from his "treatment" days. I, of course, had many "victims" too, if you count all the older children who satisfied their own sexual curiosity at my expense when I was a child as my "victims", the way the popular news agencies reported after my arrest. 

The news reports were based on supposedly confidential records from my own days in "treatment". But, I never bragged about my crimes, or glorified them in any way. And yet in the T.V. story, the man is depicted as a "monster" with only one craving: to rape and torture children. 

In fact, in the final scenes (of the part-one episode) while the "monster"/man is holding a knife (or gun, or something, I can't really remember) to the head of one of our "heroes", he starts to rant about how much he enjoys raping children. It is precisely scenes like that that really make me question the mentality of the people who watch this crap, not to mention the people who write and produce it! "Monsters" like that simply can't, and don't, exist in the real world. Psychologists have known for a long time (though it seems even entire factions of them have somehow forgotten this fact) that sex crimes are almost never about sex. They are about power and control over some perceived source of pain and suffering that is pathologically associated with sex. So how in the world can so many people still find sex-fiend monsters so believable? It's like believing in sea monsters (which is actually a better analogy than it might seem at first, at least from a sociological and historical perspective).

It reminds me of a show that I see sometimes on the Mexican channel (Galavision) called "La Rosa de Guadalupe", in which problems are miraculously resolved after someone prays to the Virgin Mary for help. The only difference is that the "hero" is Guadalupe (the Spirit of the Virgin Mary) instead of an SVU police squad. In both shows the "heroes" and the "villains" are pathologically unrealistic. And both shows have a devoted fan-base made up of "true believers". 

[J.D. March 3, 2015]

Killing Jesus

By condemning me, society in effect condemns more children to be raped and murdered. The cycle that causes the children to be so condemned is well known and scientifically established. So why do we do it? Why do we ignore the truth in favor of vengeance?

They said that by hanging Westley Allen Dodd they were preventing more children from getting raped and murdered, by «sending a message» to those who would do such a thing. I was in prison in Walla Walla when they hung him there. And I got the «message» loud and clear! Dodd's hanging more than any other single event convinced me that I would never be accepted by society because of what I did when I was sixteen years old (i.e. made a fourteen-year-old by suck my dick, which got me 20 years in prison!). Yes, the message was loud and clear, «We hate people like you and we will kill you if we ever find out who you are!»

Is it really any surprise then that I hid my fantasies, which allowed them to develop completely unchecked by social mores? Is it any wonder then that I learned to lie and deceive people about my real feelings in order to avoid being completely ostracized and condemned before I even did anything? Is it really so unbelievable that I eventually kidnapped children to rape and murder as soon as I could? Isn't that what those whose self-worth depends so much on being able to condemn people like me really wanted? Someone they could openly hate and put themselves above!

All those people who wanted Westley dead will never listen to what I'm saying. Just like they didn't listen to Westley himself when he tried to tell them, «If you kill me, you only make more like me.»

And so now I stand condemned to die. And by killing me our so-called «Justice System» will once again send its message. And more children will be raped and murdered. And more people like me will be condemned. And the cycle goes on. I tried to break it, by taking Shasta home and turning myself in. Jesus tried to break it 2000 years ago by turning himself in and confessing, as I did, to violating society's most sacred symbols of innocence. Jesus wanted to end the cycle of condemnation with his message of forgiveness. But, no one listened then; and no one is listening now.

How many more children must be raped and murdered for our ego's sake? How many more times will the Christians keep killing Jesus before they finally realize what he was trying to say?

[J.D. May 16, 2015]

Being Human

To claim that another human being is «not human», or otherwise somehow less than human, because of something they have done that you do not understand, is just a covert way of saying, «You are different than me, and I am better than you.» It is simple prejudice in disguise, and it has all the traits of ignorance, weak-mindedness and cowardice that typify prejudice.

Ignorance; because it ignores the central tenet of human existence: That we are all one and the same at heart.

Weak-minded; because it does not make the intellectual effort to see past the superficial evidence to the substantial truth that we are one and the same.

And cowardly; because it is fear that causes such a person to try to hide their weak-minded ignorant views from the truth that would destroy their delusion of sovereignty over others.

And so I say, so it is to be human. We are all ignorant, weak-minded cowards; and we are all human! (1) (2)

[J.D. May 17, 2015]

Notes:
(1) I'm no Christian, but I've studied Christianity and it seems to me that this is all the mythical legend of Christ was trying to teach us: That nobody deserves to live, or to be loved by God (the Universe), and yet we do, and we are. It's a simple message that no one who separates themselves from the «condemned» (by calling themselves «saved») will ever understand. Hence, they condemn themselves by calling themselves «Christian»! The Bible says that we are saved by admitting our unworthiness; and hence by admitting (or «believing») the Truth.

(Sub-note: Some Christians do understand this; I have read their words and see that they do. But, these Christians do not identify with Christianity as the source of their only «salvation» and hence they themselves admit that they are only «Christian» by convention, not by identity. They understand that they are not saved by what they chose to believe, but by believing in the Truth, no matter how difficult, and terrifying it is to do so.)

(2) We overcome our human nature only by realizing our divine nature; which is realizing ourselves as one with the universe, and one with each other.

The Meaning Of Ignorence

I use the word, «ignorance» (sometimes deliberately misspelled as «ignorence» in order to emphasize the root of the word, i.e. to ignore) a lot. But, I seldom mean anything derogatory by it when I do. For me, ignorance is as natural as gravity, and just as pervasive.

But, to be sure, I should be clear about what I mean by ignorance insofar as it might differ from the common usage of the word. The main difference (and I would say the only significant difference) is mostly connotational. On the surface, the meaning is plain and straight forward; it means simply, the lack of knowledge. But, most people use the word to imply something more sinister than that. They use it to imply that someone is somehow inferior, or faulty because of their ignorance. When I use the word I usually prefer that such implications were not so widely emphasized, which is why I often intentionally misspell the word, «ignorence», in order to (hopefully) rid the word of some of its unwarranted baggage.

The meaning of the word, ignorence, is important to me, because it holds the key to the lack of understanding that causes so much unnecessary suffering and violence in this world. For me, ignorence is a willful act, not a passive state at all. We choose to «ignore» the very knowledge that could otherwise be freely known. But --- and this is the «key» I mentioned a moment ago --- we almost always make that choice unconsciously, or we have at least become unconscious of ever having made it.

Let me give you a simple example. Most of the time we are unconscious of our choice to breathe. So, I would say that we are ignorent of our breathing. Of course, it's a relatively simple matter in this case to become conscious of our choice, and hence, to «breathe consciously». This is a commonly practiced meditation technique. And, it is said that a «master» can (and does) essentially «meditate» continuously, which is to say that they remain conscious of their breathing, and their heart-beating, and their movements, and everything else they are doing, all at the same time. It is this «expanded consciousness» that defies ignorence. And so an enlightened master is someone who literally ignores nothing, and hence is not ignorent unless he consciously chooses to be.

To get a sense for what this might be like, we have only to work at expanding our own consciousness, usually with the help of meditation «exercises». Becoming more «conscious» means simply to become more aware of what we are doing. So, through meditation, for example, we might learn to become aware of the unconscious choices we make that define who we are (or, more precisely, WHAT we are... but that's not real important for this discussion). By doing this, even if we never achieve true «enlightenment» or complete self-awareness, we end up gaining much more control over ourselves, and our lives, as a result, which is the only real control any of us can ever have.

So, that's all ignorance, or ignorence, is to me. It is simply the unconscious choice we make to ignore what we are doing (and hence, who we are). Ignorence is the natural state of non-enlightenment. And as our enlightened teachers have so often tried to teach us, there is no shame in it.

[J.D. April 22, 2015]  

Criminal Minds, We All Have One

The simple fact that there is a popular television series called, "Criminal Minds", is indicative of the depth of ignorance that permeates our culture. It doesn't matter what the program is about; the title alone portrays the ignorance of which I speak. In another age titles such as, "Negro Mentality", or "Jew Psychology" once indicated the same kind of ignorance. It is the ignorance of prejudice and self-righteous superiority. The only purpose such program titles serve is to bespeak a class of people who are deemed inferior and undesirable, so the rest can feel superior and accepted, even though the traits that define the marginalized class are superficial and meaningless.

We know today that Negro's aren't the simple and stupid cretins they were once commonly believed to be. Instead, the culture itself that depicted them as such literally defined and created the circumstances that supported the appearance of the inferior "Negro Mentality". And Jewish people aren't the greedy and single minded herd animals that they were once commonly held to be, not just by Nazis, but by major political factions in the United States, and other countries as well, prior to the so-called holocaust. We know now that the "science" that was used to support both of these prejudicial illusions was itself the cause of so much ignorance. Negro brains are not in fact less functional than Caucasian brains, and Jewish culture does not in fact center around money and wealth. Negroes and Jews are collectively no different than any other people on earth, aside from the color of their skin or religious beliefs. And so "criminals" are no different than anyone else as well, aside from the arbitrary fact that they were caught, and convicted of a crime.

Social studies prove that nearly everyone breaks the law sooner or later. And the so-called "Criminal Mind" is no different than anyone else's mind or mentality, when taken on the average. As a matter of fact, several studies have shown and confirmed that when taken as a group, prison guards and prison inmates share very similar "mentalities" (psychological profiles) and social structures.

While the title of a show like "Criminal Minds" is bad enough, the content of such shows takes cultural ignorance to a whole new level. The producers never hesitate to use fiction while creating characters and scenarios that would and could never exist or happen in the real world. For starters, the real behavior analysis unit in the FBI has never been successful at anything except PR (and "Criminal Minds" is a direct result of this success). Their behavioral analysis have roughly the same predictive success as psychic readings. And before the movie "Silence of the Lambs" came out the only notoriety they received was for their record of failures. But, after "Silence" came out their public image changed radically, all based purely on fictional accounts of their success that involved even more fictitious criminal characters that could no more exist in reality than Count Dracula or Dr. Jekyll.

I personally use the term "criminal" to refer to people in general, not just those who have been caught and convicted. In my book, we are all "criminal" by nature, not by arbitrary "law and circumstance". I believe someday, perhaps even someday soon, I will have a lot of company.

(J.D. January 9, 2015)

The Dumbest Question In The World

Does God exist?

Anyone who sets out to answer that question - or worse, thinks they know the answer one way or the other - is severely deluded. The question itself implies the delusion. To ask if "God" exists presumes some definition of "God" to begin with. And it doesn't matter what that definition is; as soon as you define a word the word itself becomes no more than a symbol for the definition, and hence in itself is meaningless.

To ask if "God" exists is like asking if "Groking" is real. You can argue all you want about the answer, but in the end all you are really doing is arguing over the definition of "God" or "Groking", not whether he/she/it is real or "exists" at all.

So, the question was never if God exists, but rather, what is God? And that has got to be the dumbest question in the world.

God is typically defined as a "being that has, of necessity, all of these attributes: omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence, concreteness", and thereby exists (!). I prefer to simply say that God is everything. Or, to put it philosophically: That that is, is God; that that is not, is not God. And if we agree in general with this definition (or something close to it) then the delusional nature of our first question becomes more apparent.

"Does God exist?" All this question really asks is, "Does the Universe exist?" Or, "Do WE exist?"

Do you?

(J.D. February 4, 2015)

Note: Quote from EMPTY IDEAS: A CRITIQUE OF ANALYTIC PHILOSOPHY by Peter Unger

Animal Morality

If you can't put human behavior in terms of animal nature then the terminology you are using is dishonest and deceptive.

I'm not suggesting that it is incorrect tu use such terms as, "morality" when discussing human motives, only that if you do then you must include morality in your discussions of animal motives as well. It is perhaps the greatest vanity and error, in human thinking to presume that humans are generally somehow superior to all other animals; we are not. And, one can easily argue that in many ways we are inferior to other animals, even generally speaking!

(J.D. January 16, 2015)

Remembering The Truth

Any neuroscientist will tell you that we only remember a mere fraction of a percentage of everything we actually experience in life. And, the so-called memories we do have are mostly reconstructed images based on relatively little and notoriously dubious information that is actually retained by our brains. When you "remember" what you had for breakfast this morning you are relying more on your brains ability to fantasize than you are on any actual memory of what you ate. This is all confirmed and frequently studied by neuroscientists all the time, but hasn't yet quite worked its way into our social consciousness, much less our cultural philosophy.

If the direct implications of this scientific knowledge were embraced by our culture then it would undermine many of the basic tenets and principles that our entire social system is based upon. For example, our justice system alone would be forced to abandon all human testimony in court, "expert" or otherwise, as unreliable and arbitrary; which numerous studies directed at such testimony has consistently confirmed. Our current faith in human memory, both other people's and our own, would have to be abandoned along with all the cultural structures that depend on it which are intricately intertwined with all our institutions and belief systems. It would quite literally mean the end of civilization as we know it!

Of course that's not going to happen anytime soon. The power of consensus is still in effect and officially in fully inforced control of what "truths" we are allowed to assimilatein this world. But, as individuals we might be able to break away from the "norm" and think for ourselves once in a while, in private at least. And when we do then we should contemplate the information available to us, and try to understand what it means without being afraid of what that might be.

The "fact" that we only actually remember a very very small fraction of what we experience means something very shocking and important. It means that we are NOT who we think we are, because our thoughts rely on our memories. But, the fact that we can't really remember our experiences doesn't mean that they don't effect us. In fact, our experiences directly shape who, or more correctly, what we are. So there is a clear disconnection between who, or what, we really are (based on our memories) and who, or what, we really are (based on our experiences). This disconnection is the primary source of delusion, misunderstanding, and all prejudice in our world. It separates us from the truth of who, and what, we really are. And if you've been paying attention in life, then you should already have at least an idea of what that "truth" is, and an even clearer idea of what it ISN'T.

(J.D. January 2, 2015)

Criminal Entitlement

I have insisted since my arrest that the reason I did what I did (kidnappings, raping and murdering children) was mostly in order to get revenge, or "poetic justice", for what society in general did to me as a child. I realize how pathetic this sounds as an excuse. But, I'm not saying it to make an excuse for what I did. In fact, I have also said over and over, and even in court on several occasions, that there is no excuse for what I did. The only reason I insist that I was "punishing society" for what it did to me when I was vulnerable and asking for help is because it represents a critical element in my crimes that I could have easily been defused long before I ever became violent.

In fact, I believe it underscores a critical element of all crimes that is almost always completely ignored even though it could effectively stop crime, all crime, in its tracks. I'm talking about the element of entitlement.

The one thing that all so-called "bad guys" have in common is an immediate sense of entitlement to hurt, take from, or otherwise violate another person. In fact, this sense of entitlement is so prevalent in crime that it could be used to define wrong doing in general. I have often hinted that "punishing" criminals is no more than answering crime with more crime. And, unlike fighting fire with fire, all it does is cause more pain and destruction while at the same time providing a further sense of entitlement to the so-called criminals. All "criminal justice" accomplishes is insuring the need for more "criminal justice".

The author of IN DEFENSE OF CHAOS, L. K. Samuels, spends a considerable amount of time in his book developing this same idea. He writes, "Nobody sees himself as evil" (p. 99). And he gives several examples from criminals to dictators who all believed, as I once did, that they were entitled to do what they did.

But, the problem is that our culture is built upon the principle of entitlement. Our most fundamental and basic laws themselves are a list of entitlements that we call "rights". And, every conflict that has ever developed, from who gets the "Eggo" from the toaster to world war, has been an argument over entitlement. Everyone feels entitled to do what they do, no matter how "criminal" or "heinous" it seems to someone else. And that's the problem.

What if nobody felt entitled to anything? Where does the sense of entitlement come from to begin with? What would happen if instead of telling (lying to) people about all the "rights" they have we simply informed them of their "responsibilities" instead? Like the responsibility to protect our loved ones, instead of the so-called right to be safe from harm (which is just Orwellian doublespeak if you think about it). I think there are real and meaningful answers to questions like these, and, that those answers could lead us to a better, freer, and far more compassionate reality.

(J.D. February 4, 2015)

The Three Faces of Truth

Like the Christian God, Truth had three distinct "faces" that are presented to us according to our ability to "see" and understand.

The first and most commonly perceived face of truth is what most people might call factual truth. But, it could also be called perceptual truth, or apparent truth. This is the first and most obvious face of reality itself that we all perceive through our various senses. The sky, the earth, our bodies, the air we breath; these are all perceived, or factual, truths.

It is in the face of factual truth that the vast majority of people live their lives. It is an ignorant and extremely limited view of existence, and thus we sometimes recognize it as the "small minded" reality in others, but seldom within ourselves. And yet, it is from this "little world" of factual truth that we judge each other, and end up judging ourselves. People tend to hide behind their precious facts, and use them to conceal the greater truths that typically terrify them.

Most of the "greater truths" (though they are only arguably "greater", as we shall see in a moment) exist in light of the second face of the truth, called relative truth.

Everyone knows about the "relative truth", but few understand it, and far fewer have ever managed to embrace it. This is the face of truth that tells us plainly that there is no right or wrong, good or evil, up or down; because everything exists only in relation to everything else. The relative face of truth knows for example that time itself exist only in relation to space. Time cannot and does not exist in the absence of space, nor can an evil human exist in the absence of good humans (and vice versa).

One way to better understand the difference between factual truth and relative truth is to consider how people use them to interact. Dishonest and deluded people use the factual truth to lie to other people and themselves all the time. They commonly even think of themselves as "honest" people because of their insistence on speaking only the factual truth. Christians, politicians, and lawyers usually rely on this form of deception. It is the "safe bet", and the "wide road", which is heavily defended by state, social and religious laws that are always violently enforced lest the relative truth be known.

A person who recognizes the face and value of relative truth will appear to "speak in riddles" as they strive to be more honest and respectful of the truth in general. Such a person is more interested in what their words actually convey, rather than what they say. They strive to come out from behind their words, rather than hide behind them. Their words, when taken out of context, the way lawyers, Christians and politicians love to do, appear contradictory and nonsensical. But, in context they express the relative nature of truth, and end up being more honest, even when they are factually not true.

When an honest person is confronted they might say, "but, that's not what I meant". While a less honest person will typically insist, "but, that's not what I SAID!". An honest person uses words to EXPRESS the truth, a dishonest person uses words to DEFINE it. (A careful reader might note that this is all extremely consistent with what I have written in the past about our "deception based justice system" and helps explain why such a system can only end up bringing more pain and suffering into our world, even as it claims to bring less - i.e. it's words are empty "factual" shells that do little more than conceal the relative truth of our reality that it is necessary for us to understand if we ever want to stop ignorantly causing ourselves and others to suffer.)

And finally there is the face of Absolute Truth, which I really can't say too much about because it is by definition and by necessity an indescribable truth. The Absolute Truth though is the ultimate source of all other truth. You could say it is the greatest truth of all, but you can't really compare and grade the faces of truth like that. They are each unique and crucial to the experience we call reality. And, our world, any world for that matter, could not exist without all of them together, nor could any of the faces of truth exist without all of the faces as One. I believe this to be the mystery of the Trinity that Christian's so often misrepresent (by trying to define and confine their truth with the so-called "word of God" that to an honest person is so obviously only the words of men). I also believe that all living beings are born with an understanding of the faces of truth, and how they represent the same One Being; but men, we humans, the "fallen ones", are taught to ignore and eventually forget what we knew so naturally as children.

The "prayer" in my own life (i.e. the ultimate driving principle) has always been, and yet remains, to see a day when we all remember what we have been trained to forget. Even when I was so badly deceived myself by the world of perceptions and factual reality.

I think that if a deceived man lives in the world of factual truths, and an honest man in a world of relative truths, then an enlightened man must live in the world of Absolute Truth, from which it is plain for him to see that ultimately there is only One Truth, and deception itself - death itself - is nothing more than a shadow of the truth - a shadow of life - and certainly nothing to be afraid of.

(J.D. January 28, 2015)

The Friendly Why's

Everybody knows that flying commercially is the safest way to travel these days. But, what everyone doesn't realize is the reason why. It's certainly not because it is the safest to begin with; it's not. In fact, flying is inherently the most dangerous, by far! So why has it become so safe and becoming even more safe overall despite vastly increasing traffic and risks?

Why indeed. The answer is plain and obvious: profit! But, not just any old profit; it is all about who profits, or technically, WHAT profits. In the airline industry, safety profits, and so safety wins. If our government ran the airlines with the same blame-profit methodology that it uses to run our social institutions then air travel safety would be consistent with its intrinsic nature, and the government officials in charge would blame the "nature of air travel" for their failure to provide safety in exactly the same way they blame "human nature" for their failure to keep us safe in public and even in our homes (or, more notoriously in recent history, when catastrophe strikes; 9-11, Katrina, school shootings, etc...)

And if simple logic and reason alone isn't enough to convince you of this plain truth, then you have only to consider the safety record of the USSR government ran airline before the collapse of that social system. In Russia, when an airplane crashed, the government officials in charge made a fast scramble to point fingers and avoid blame - because that's how government officials "profit". The result is not only a failure to find the cause of the crash, but in most cases new problems end up being introduced that only caused more crashes. (A good example of this was the government instituted policy of hiring only retired military pilots for the commercial jets. The result was a notoriously dangerous clique of hot dog pilots that did nothing to decrease the accident rates but drove the passenger quotas into the ground.)

If we want to reduce crime, and "protect our children", then we must change how people profit from crime. Currently politicians, lawyers, and "law enforcement professionals" profit only if crime ensues - so why do we act so surprised when it does?

Have you ever noticed the consistency of the message in popular media against privatization of government services, even though in most (admittedly, not all, but certainly most) cases such privatized "profit driven" services have been proven to out perform government services by tens or even hundreds of times (depending on how and what is measured)? Do you really doubt that our government is still in the propaganda business? If you do then you are as much to blame for MY crimes (serial child rape and murder) as I am. It may not have been your hand that wielded the weapon, but it was your mentality.

(J.D. February 1, 2015)

Right From Wrong

If you have to be taught right from wrong, then it's not right from wrong that you are being taught. It's something else entirely!

(J.D. 11. 30. 2014.)

I'm Not The Only One

It is generally assumed that most people who rape and kill do so for sexual pleasure, or for the sense of power and control that it gives them. And yet I have claimed over and over since my arrest in 2005 that I did it for "revenge against society". Some people have said this claim is just an excuse for my sexual perversion, or a kind of denial at best. I'm even willing to admint that there may be some truth in that. But, when I look deeply and honestly within myself I find that for whatever truth there may be to the sexual motives for my crimes there is compelling evidence (thoughts, feelings, and behavior) that revenge, or "false justice", is the primary motive at the core (the same kind of justice that our "Justice System" is based upon). I don't believe that makes me unique though.

I think that the only thing unique - or maybe just somewhat unusual - about my claim is the depth of self perception it takes to make it. If other so-called "serial killers" were to look honestly within themselves I think they too would discover that ultimately a strong sense of social injustice drives them over the moral edge of social boundaries. They would find in themselves a deeper source of their "perverse" sexual obsessions, and one that echoes my own claim of social injustice.

If I'm right, then the highly touted admissions of "serial killers", that they have "no conscience", becomes the real ruse; the excuse, and the denial. The deeper, and hence truer reason for their violence is the plain old fashioned desire to harm those who are perceived to have harmed them, and/or to express their own deeply felt pain and loss by manifesting it in the real world through their crimes.

If we could see this deeper cause of such violence as a society, and take responsibility for it ourselves, then we'd be able to bring an endto the "serial killer" craze that has been infecting our culture for the last several decades. And I'm not the only one who thinks so.

(J.D. 12. 31. 2014.)

The Insanity of Prejudice

Most people, including me, have a learned tendency to fall back on old judgements when they encounter situations that demand to evaluated. We do so instead of actually taking the time to reconsider and reevaluate the situation as we should. It saves time, work, and effort, but unfortunately this habit also prevents us from considering new information when it becomes available, and ends up trapping us in a self imposed web of erroneous information and deception.

I'm talking about the age old problem of prejudice, of course. It has been recognized as the primary source of all human suffering for all of recorded history, and no doubt long before that. Many men have tried to "open our eyes" to the insanity of prejudice, and even promise a glorious new world where freedom from all judgement brings profound peace and eternal bliss for all who find their way (by ceasing to judge themselves).

Christ called it Heaven, that can be entered by "forgiveness", which is the opposite of judgement. The Buddha calls it Nirvana, and tells us that an "empty mind", free from all judgement, is the key that opens its door. Even Mohammad promised his followers a "land of milk and honey" if they would only "submit" to the Will of Allah, which really means trusting devine judgement, not your own (if the so-called "juhadists" understood this correctly they wouldn't be so ready to judge us "infidels" for themselves and they'd let Allah do it instead; but then most Christians make the same mistake; believing that their God has given them the power to judge, which is not only depicted as causing the "fall of man" in Genisis' Garden of Eden story, it is also the exact opposite of what Christ tried to teach!).

Maybe someday we will learn. I believe it is possible - I leaned, from watching the example of a child - and if I can learn this secret to eternal bliss then anyone can. I'm just not so sure if it is likely.

(J.D. November 22, 2014)

Happy eighteenth, "Girl"! I pray that you are as free today as you were the day you showed me the way "home".