Japanese Perversion

Years ago in Japan the government made it against the law to publish pictures or drawings that depict sexual penetration. And for the purpose of enforcing these laws they made it very specifically against the law to show a penis penetrating the human (i.e. female) body (orally, anally, or vaginally). The result of this has been interesting, to say the least.

Japanese pornographers, in particular those working in graphic arts (i.e. comic books, per se), quickly found alternate ways to sell their sex rags (magazines) by using illustrations of everything but the taboo "sexual act". And in the process they created whole new genres of sexual perversion.

One of the most popular and widely distributed forms of this new sexual deviation is commonly referred to as "tentacle sex". It shows monsters, aliens, and mutant humans having sex with super sexy young females, and showing full penetration, only with tentacles instead of penises. Not surprisingly this "art" is very popular in Japan, where "xxx" porn is otherwise outlawed.

But, there is still another even more popular genre of perverted sex in Japan that also results directly from the governments attempt to suppress basic human nature, and it is one that most Americans would (pretend) to find even more "disgusting" (even though it is widely embraced in America in its "milder" forms).

I'm talking about "sexy school-girls", commonly depicted as young as six to sixteen. This form of "child erotica" bordering on "child porn" is very popular in Japan, and commonly accepted. People don't realize that it became popular around the same time and for the same basic reasons that tentacle sex became popular.

People need sex. If you take away open sexual expression in its most prevalent form (penetration) then people will naturally and instinctively seek "substitutes". Tentacle sex is an obvious substitute. And while the sexualization of children is not as obviously a substitute, it is undeniably a result of the same self-righteous attempts of those who pretend to be "above sex" (and hence, above their "animal nature") by passing laws that attempt to suppress said nature.

In Japan, "sexy school-girls" stand in for "naughty desire" when ordinary "naughtiness" is against the law. In the United States we will allow "naughty" pictures and movies, but we still criminalize "naughty" behavior (prostitution, rape, and increasingly any open display of sexual interest). [Note: in most states the definition of "rape" is non-consensual "intercourse", defined as sexual penetration of the (usually female) body... sound familiar?]

I believe that the reason "sex crime" is so prevalent in the United States is because sexual behavior is so heavily repressed. Just like the rise of "tentacle sex" and "sexy school-girls" in Japanese magazines resulted from laws that restrict sexual expression in published form, the rise of criminal sexual behavior in the U.S. is the result of restrictions against sexual behavior. We resort to rape, murder, and/or children for sex, when we have no other outlets, just as the Japanese resort to such things in their popular publications.

Not everyone in Japan buys tentacle sex magazines, and not everyone in the U.S. resorts to crime for sex. I'm only observing a connection here that those who make our laws would rather we not know about. (I saw a forensic psychology "expert" insist on T.V. the other day - for no apparent reason - that "sex crime is NOT on the rise in America", which, of course, it is, and has been since the 70s when they started passing so many sex laws along side, or I'd say "behind" in the covert sense, all the drug laws.) Check my facts, and reasoning, and comment below if you like. But let me leave you with this one telling clue: Less than 1% of the illegal "child porn" on the Internet shows anal or vaginal penetration (or so I have been told). So what is it that so-called "pedophiles" really want? Think about it, I dare you!

[J.D. February 12, 2020]

What Separates Us

I get really tired of hearing prominent people, especially scientists and philosophers, telling us about what separates us, as humans, from other animals. The idea that we are somehow separate and above all the other species on this planet is as ignorant and offensive to me as racism. In fact, the mentality (i.e. basic reasoning, if you can call it that) behind these two views is no different. And even though we are clearly different than any other species on Earth, we are not special, or separate from them in any sense but the imagined.

And I believe it is this imagined sense of superiority over animals, and each other, that provokes and allows us to behave in ways that make us the single most dangerous and destructive species to ever infest our world. We behave en masse exactly like a cancer that is consuming the flesh and resources of the Earth Herself while we grow and spread unchecked. Our arrogance allows us to ignore all the signs and symptoms of the "disease" we represent.

As I understand it (and please check me in comments if I am mistaken, as I have only my memory and cant knowledge to rely upon here; I can't go to a library or check the Internet as I'd like) a cell must exhibit three qualities in order to be classified as cancerous: The ability to reproduce unchecked; the ability to access and consume resources unchecked; and the ability to circumvent the host body's natural defenses. The additional ability to migrate and survive in different parts o the body is what makes an ordinary cancer cell metastatic, and notoriously the most dangerous and deadly of all cancers.

As a species, we humans have acquired and exhibit all four of these qualities! We can obviously migrate and survive in all but the harshest regions (i.e. North and South poles). And our ability to reproduce unchecked has been a long recognized "problem". But it wasn't until relatively recently that we've developed the means to access and consume resources without limit, and to stave off the natural "immune responses" of the Earth Herself, such as famine, plagues, and massive manslaughter (a.k.a. "war" --- of course we still have many small scale wars around the globe, but nothing compared to the mass slaughters of the 19th and 20th centuries, which I believe were a natural response to over-population).

Of course I'm making it a lot simpler than the reality. Our ability to reproduce unchecked is linked to our ability to acquire and consume resources, and all that is potentially limited by more than just wars and famines and plagues. But the fundamental patterns of how we reproduce, consume resources, defeat natural checks and balances, and propagate our kind is undeniably the same as cancer. The only question is, where will it lead?

I don't believe cancer itself is just a disease. In fact, I believe it is a natural and necessary phenomenon that is ultimately an incredible part of evolution itself. I have no real evidence to support this idea, but I believe it may well be possible that our separate organs and body functions began as the result of "cancerous growths" that became functional systems, like eyes, stomachs, and lungs. If you study how our cells "differentiate" after fertilization you will start to see patterns that this differentiation that are remarkably similar to the way some cancers can be passed from one generation to the next.

The mutations that cause certain cancers do not manifest as cancer until certain conditions are met, such as exposure to nicotine, asbestos, or some other "stressor". People who do not carry these "mutations" (i.e. genes) can be exposed to the carcinogens without developing cancer. This is remarkably similar to the way the mere presences o enough fetal cells causes some of the cells to behave differently (i.e. "differentiate") even though they all share the same genes.

So, are we doomed? I hope not. if I'm wrong about cancer being a natural part of evolution then we most likely will ultimately destroy our host body's (the Earth's) ability to sustain higher life forms. But, if I¨m right, then maybe the Earth Herself has the natural ability to "process" cancerous organisms, such as humankind, far more efficiently than individual animal's bodies can. In other words, regardless of our hubris, Mother Earth may have plans for us yet! Let's hope so.

[J.D. January 31, 2020]

"I" Am Not "Me"

In a letter to my Mom today I wrote once more to her about my decision to stop acting "insane" (stop raping and murdering children, etc.) and turn myself in to the "authorities" (of the present world). I want her more than anyone to understand that there is nothing "wrong" with her son (or her, by retraction), and that there never was (other than the common insanity that afflicts us all). And in order to do that I tell her in as many different ways as I can about the "epiphany" I had that caused me to realize that what I was doing was no more or less insane than the things people (society) did to me when I was still a very confused child (see The Fifth Nail "Confessions" blog for details). I want my mother to understand that her son ultimately saw through the delusions that our culture so carefully cultivates and that provided the insane rational I needed in order to do the inhumane things I had done (and had been done to me). I believe the epiphany I had in the Montana wilderness with my last child victim is key to understanding why I did what I did (rape and kill, etc.). Because once you understand why I stopped, and I mean really understand, then the reason I started in the first place becomes self-evident (hint: because I believed the greatest lie of all, that I am sovereign over my own life and destiny, and hence "responsible" for what I do and who I am).

This realization, that I am not responsible for who I am (as an individual), nor for the things that I do, was the crux of the epiphany I had that let me see through the powerful delusions which were built around the premise that I am (responsible). Once that premise fell so did all the beliefs and rationalizations that depended on it. I could no longer convince myself that I had a "right" to hurt those who hurt me, or to take what I wanted from anyone, because suddenly my personal wants and desires became as meaningless as... well, me.

What does that mean? Am I really so meaningless? Not at all; that's not what I mean. I essentially realized that "I" am not "me". "I" and "me" are two completely different things. "I" is who I am underneath or behind the illusion of "me". And I am responsible for who I am. But - and this is important - I can only be "responsible" for who I am if I know the full consequences, past, present, and future (i.e. eternity) of who I am. And I can only know the full consequences if I am omniscient. And if I am omniscient then I must also be omnipotent, and omnipresent as well if you really think about it!

Yes! I realized in an instant something I knew deep down all my life, but had forgotten and ignored for too long; that I am God! No, not "me", but "I" am. The real infinite "me", not the limited delusional "me" who pretends to have power and control (and responsibility) over what I do, think, and feel. Yes, "I" have control, but the "me" (egotistical) only pretends (as it turns out is provable with certain scientific studies of how the brain makes choices before it formulates the excuses for those choices - excuses that constitute the very delusions of which I speak, of "responsibility" and "control", etc. etc.). The eternal "me", who I really am, decided long before I was ever born - before the universe was even born - who I would be and all the things I would do. And not just that, but everything and everyone else would do as well, which means of course that "I" was the one who hurt "me" as a child! I chose this life, and all those things that I once thought were done to "me" by so many others; by "them".

I realized - or, rather - I remembered - that "I" am the only Being in all creation (or, properly speaking, that I am The Creator!). That's why i kept saying, "It's not about me anymore!" and, "I'm not afraid anymore!" over and over after I had this epiphany. Because I knew, or more correctly, I saw, and I remembered who I really was. "I" am not "me". "I" am God! And as God I am responsible not just for "me", but for everything (and everyone) in all eternity.

[J.D. January 14, 2020] 

Reflections of Me

Metamorphosis of Narcissus (1937) by Salvador Dalí

The Fifth Nail blog has always been written as an honest expression of my most personal thoughts, feelings, dreams, and memories. But, it's not a blog about "me", per se. I believe that I am a reflection of everything and everyone that exists. So, by writing about myself, I am hoping to let people see reflections of themselves in me.

I cannot tell anyone what reflection they might see herein. But, by being as honest and open as I can, I believe these "reflections" will be as clear as possible. The more honest I am, the more clear they will be.

Different people will see different reflections in my words, which is to say that each will take their own meaning and understanding from what they find here. I expect most will never realize it is only a reflection of themselves that they see ("Ye will be judged according to how ye judge others..." etc.), but I suspect it doesn't matter if they realize it is THEIR reflection or not. Because, even if they themselves do not realize what they see is only a reflection of their own heart, the reflection itself will in turn be reflected in them. I believe that is how the intelligence of nature works. Who we are is reflected by the things we do and say, and the more honest we are with ourselves and others, the more the intelligence of nature is reflected in us, whether we realize it or not.

So, being honest, to me, is kind of prime directive in life. The more honest we are, the clearer our reflections will be. Thus I see myself, or rather - my existence, as a kind of mirror, which in itself is unimportant. But, what I "reflect" is everything - and the only thing - that matters. So the better I reflect, which is to say the more honest I am, the greater my service will be to the Living Truth, which sees Itself in me.

(Note: I make no attempt here to describe what I reflect. The reflection can only see and comprehend itself within us. We cannot see or comprehend what we ourselves reflect, and I believe it is a grave mistake to think we can. I call this mistake "judgment", but it has been recognized and called many other things, such as "sin", "fear", "ignorance". But no matter what it is called, it is a blemish on the mirror our souls are meant to be. We are not made to judge or even comprehend our existence; we were made simply to reflect, and perhaps appreciate, the Truth that is reflected in us all, the Truth that I like to call, "The Living Truth" - but also has many names.)

[J.D. October 24, 2019]

The Voice of Reason

Religion says: Trust me, I have it all figured out.
Reason says: Trust no one, and figure it out for yourself.

Religion says: Serve me, and I will serve you.
Reason says: Serve yourself, and you will serve me.

Religion says: Believe in me, and I will save you.
Reason says: Believe in yourself, and we will save each other.

Religion says: Have faith without question.
Reason says: Question everything, especially faith.

Religion says: I am for certain.
Reason says: Nothing is for certain.

Religion says: Without me, you are damned.
Reason says: Without you, I am damned.

Religion says: I will show you your purpose.
Reason says: We decide our own purpose.

Religion says: Follow me, and I will show you the way.
Reason says: Follow no one, and make your own way.

Religion says: The choice is yours, but...
Reason says: The choice is yours, period.

The Emperor's Balls

We all know the story of the emperor's magical robes. But the moral, while often cited, is seldom considered to its rational conclusion.

Consider for instance the child, whom at the end of the moral points at the naked emperor and exclaims, "Mommy, why is that man not wearing any clothes!?"

In the story, this is the end of the moral. But, in real life, it seldom ends there.

In real life, as much as we profess to admire and even relish the child's innocence, we seldom learn from it. In real life, the child is admonished, and even punished, perhaps just figuratively, but sometimes literally slapped across the face for simply asking such an honest question.

In our modern "enlightened" society, such a child is seen as spoiled, or even corrupted and suddenly, conveniently, no longer so "preciously innocent". The mother is horrified by her child's question. Not because she fears the truth that the child questions, but because she fears her own infidelity might be exposed, for remember she too sees the naked emperor. And in her mind she only sees his nakedness because she herself is "impure", and cannot see the beautifully magic robes he wears!

So the child is punished for simply failing to conform to the socially accepted delusion that the emperor is wearing the most beautiful robes ever made!

This happens in real life all the time. It happened to me as a child in an almost literal sense. I once learned a "dirty" joke from some older children when I was just six years old. I did not understand why the joke was so funny, so I repeated it to my mother in front of some of her friends. She promptly slapped my face and told me bitterly never to repeat such a joke again!

Of course I still did not understand what made the joke so funny, and even less why I was slapped for repeating it. The joke, of course, was in a sense nothing less than a reference to the emperor's nudity. If such an emperor ever existed in real life, then the children of that reality would without doubt make "unspeakable" jokes about his nudity, just as the children in this reality, my reality, make "dirty" jokes about "unspeakable" things that no "pure" person would ever admit was very plain for everyone, including children, to see.

Thus, the "emperor" in my reality is in essence human sexual nature, or more simply, our animal nature. And like the child in the story who questioned the emperor's nudity, while everyone else pretended he was dressed so beautifully, we commonly admonish and even harshly punish our children for being so innocently curious about it. So it should really be such a great "surprise" when one or several of those children grow up into bitter and vengeful adults who openly lament the emperor's "nudity" and even on occasion dare to kick the emperor himself in the "balls", figuratively speaking, by lashing out violently against (i.e. with) our sexual (animal) nature?

That's exactly what I was doing when I so brazenly kidnapped, raped, and murdered all those children, even killing an entire family in the very "safety of their home" that our emperor "dresses" himself with so smugly. I was very deliberately kicking the emperor of this world in his balls hoping that maybe then people would see and admit his "nudity". I realize now, of course, the futility of my rageous actions. People will defend their delusion with their life if necessary (but more likely with other people's lives, as wars are commonly fought, even today by the U.S., and its allies, in defense of the emperor's "magical robes"). Regardless, I still believe the day will come when there will be no more emperors, and no more need to "dress" them, delusionally or otherwise. But, until then, people like me, who were once children questioning the emperor's nudity, i.e. social delusions, and people like Jesus who was doing no less when he overturned the money-changers tables in the temple, will continue to kick the emperor in the balls as long as his balls are out in the open begging to be kicked! (In case you missed the analogy, all I'm saying is that as long as society insists on believing in the "beauty" of things that don't even exist, like "social justice", "safe communities", "the non-sexual nature of children" and "innocence", there will be people like me who compulsively attack the delusion!)

[J.D. September 11, 2019]

As For Justice...

According to my philosophy dictionary, the Sophists were the first philosophers to bring philosophy into the social arena. They were the first to get paid to teach philosophy, and the first to train people for the role of social leadership and administration (a.k.a. politics). They were also the ones who gave us our modern definition of justice in the social context. The Sophists were a 5th century B.C. group of famous teachers in Athens, Greece, and contemporaries of the likes of Plato and Aristotle, who also heavily influenced our modern understanding of justice.

The Sophists most notably distinguished justice as having primarily two forms: conventional, and natural. Conventional justice is what commonly passes for justice in ordinary social contexts. It primarily serves the interests of the strong (those in power), while pretending to provide "justice" for the weak in order to keep them willingly subservient (see Thrasymachos e.g.).

George Orwell illustrates the double standard of conventional justice in his book "1984", where he coined the term "double speak" to refer to the way those in power twist the meaning of words in order to render them philosophically weak and useless. Thus terms like, "justice for all", which is philosophical nonsense (i.e. a contradictory and impossible idea), is used to help keep the weak-minded masses - the "herd", as later philosophers refer to it - from being able to contemplate meaningfully and hence question "authority" (the ones who provide "justice for all", but really provide nothing except justice for themselves, or "just-us" justice).

This is what the Sophists taught to those who were to take power in ancient Greece. Of course politics today is no more than a bizarre puppet show, where the puppets themselves are weak-minded automatons who really believe they have power when they clearly have none (i.e. they are either completely delusional - as in most cases - or extremely egoistic attention seekers; or both). The ones who pull the strings these days do so from behind the scenes, never daring to expose their power, knowing that as soon as they do it will be taken from them, often by the sheep herd itself (which is what the Nazis were trying to prevent, but obviously failed in their own hubris - i.e. they had a valid idea, but not the power to do anything about it - they were weakened by the very "sickness" they sought to eradicate: self-righteous self-perception).

Essentially, according to the Sophists, justice is the interest of power. So conventional justice (a.k.a "modern justice", a.k.a. "social justice", etc.) is an illusion, or literally a kind of false justice that those in power pull over the eyes of the sheep as a means of wielding the power that they invoke in their own interest. To the Sophists, this deception was nothing less than a means of natural justice. Conventional (or false) "justice", is a lie that allows those in power to invoke natural (or true) "justice", for themselves. The truth is that real justice - natural justice, that is - can never be given, or provided, especially not by any systematic or institutional means. It can only be taken by the one who seeks it!

So, the next time someone tells you that it is wrong to take justice into your own hands, realize that what they say is just doublespeak meant to keep you weak and subservient to those in power. The truth is that there is no place else where justice belongs but in your own hands. Justice given is really just-us (those in power) taking the power of justice away.

[J.D. July 12, 2019]