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]