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).
Sunday, August 18, 2013
Sunday, August 11, 2013
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)
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)
Sunday, August 4, 2013
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.
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.
Saturday, July 27, 2013
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)
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)
Sunday, July 21, 2013
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)
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)
Friday, July 12, 2013
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)
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)
Saturday, July 6, 2013
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)
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)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)