Reality: Understanding The Concept of "Layers"

Life is experienced within various levels of reality.  Some levels are variations on others according to perception, but most are self-contained and require a certain kind of intent in order to be known, or to be known accurately, in any case.  World systems, designed for interaction, are fashioned in such a way as to obviate or preclude all levels of reality—and hence, all other organizational systems—save the one within which they function.  The one within which these obsolete systems operate is the most illusory of all.  The ancient Hindus named it ‘Maya,’ meaning ‘the world of appearance and illusion,’ and indeed this is the fitting name for our everyday base reality, facilitative of so few of our human capabilities and aspirations.  One simply cannot ascend to the level of self-actualization while remaining mired in the illusion of ‘this vs. that.’  This fact serves to substantiate the idea that experience must stand alone, apart even from all effectual extension of the self upon the plane of mutual interchange.  Only then may it be said to be viewed rightly, thereby remaining impervious, as it were, to logical deconstruction.  What degree of serious thought is required to understand that the entire World System is a total Re-Do?

The Task of Philosophy

To guard against a nihilism that becomes vulnerable to influence by the various strains of ‘fatalism in disguise’ that have become so trendy these days, we must continue to occupy ourselves with pure philosophy. It is only when sentiment and corrupted notions of teleology enter into the discourse that we may be distracted by the fanciful and the wishful, with the result that we are inevitably seduced into slipping back toward thoughts of reform. We already know that reform is utterly impossible, and yet when such ideas are presented with sufficient fluff they become tempting even to the strongest of wills. In such moments we do not have to rely upon ideological stubbornness, and certainly not upon narrow mindedness in order to remain faithful. It is simply a matter of going back to the world, observing the facts, and realizing anew that we are indeed the gate-keepers to humanity’s last stand. Until the orgy blossoms in full, there remains nothing but devolution and the destruction of ALL life by corporate man, and it is precisely here that we turn back, again and always, to philosophy, whose clear and reasoned directives alone enable us to live with the powerful implications involved in reaching the New Frontier. It is no exaggeration to say that the fate of the world depends upon philosophy to give intelligible voice to the inexorable reality that civilization has reached the point of critical mass. It is already in the death-grip of failure and will reach its destination soon enough. As far as our feeling for humanity, it is with us now just as it has been all along. But at some point the writing on the wall simply becomes too clear to ignore. The masses are too dull to be awakened by thought, logic, or ultimate truth, and in any case it is already too late.

The Coming of The New Man

The New Man sees life rightly as a celebration. But the world, hardened by its blind perpetuation of the slave ethic and hollow self-sacrifice, continues to bring winds and rain to bear upon the proceedings. The New Man is not really so new.  He has actually been around for a long time. From the beginning, in fact. He has watched, he has sought to teach. He once produced doctrines. He has laid the philosophy for human perfection bare in all its detail.  All along the way, watching from the shadows, he has continued to celebrate in the midst of insanity, disease, and death. But yet he is never granted entrance to any position on high.  As a result, it became inevitable that all cause for celebration has been driven into the margins and The New Man realizes that his time is finally come. He has waited from the dawn of time for today. And it is thus that he emerges from the shadows to bring the message of utter annihilation to the world. He knows what he is preaching. He has always known. He raises his hand; sadly, but with power and with the conviction of all eternity. Then, without hesitation, he brings his hand down harshly, saying:

‘All is lost. Burn it to the ground that we may begin anew!’

It is said that Jesus came bearing a sword, but The New Man comes bearing a torch! His fire will raze the ruling structures to dust. The New Man and The New Woman will draw upon the wisdom of a deeper cosmos, and will cause all to be made right.

Out Here On The Perimeter

Opening ourselves to experiences lying closest to the perimeter, and if possible, beyond it, is the only chance we have for achieving our evolutionary awakening.  The decision for or against this awakening is the one and only ‘given’ that we encounter in the moment at every moment, and it is thus that our reaching for the outer limits acquires validity. Simply put, we are unable to evolve if we refuse to raze the entire edifice of cultural imperatives to dust.  There is no longer any hope of reform.  Even the notion of Revolution is now become a misnomer of sorts.  The only hope for anything worthy of the name 'Revolution' now resides in the stripping away of every last vestige of normality and authority in existence.  Our only potential, our only comfort shall come in the form of Tabula Rasa!

For me, it has taken time to come all the way here. As an adolescent, I recognized the evil inherent in the development of culture, and believed that through revolution anything was possible in terms of change. Even violent overthrow of established systems seemed a real option for a time. Once that was shown to be a pipe dream, I reluctantly settled for the lesser notion that reform was possible. But the years of our lives go by, and reform is also shown to be not merely a pipe dream, but the incurable delusion of fools.  Along with this comes the even more horrifying realization that power has continued to successfully corrupt the very concept of progressive thought, just as predicted by the apocalyptic writers such as Orwell and Huxley. At the end of the day, there are only two real options remaining; three, if you count selling out. We’re not going to do that. The two legitimate options are world-negation, that is, some variation on the precepts of Eastern Philosophy that sees the world only as illusion and renounces it, or the thoroughgoing rejection of all authoritative ideologies in favor of a comprehensive and uncompromising individualism, through which we endeavor to make ourselves aware of our own truth, or self-actualization, by refusal to be hoodwinked into adopting the conformist identity of the herd. Clearly, I have made my choice for the latter.

The Choice: The problem with world negation is simply that it is a passive philosophy. Our inclinations toward action always get siphoned off into the anonymity of a rigid admonition to self-sacrifice (because the self is not real anyway) for the good of others. It actually becomes far closer to the Christian ethic than the Easterners OR the Christians would have us believe. It is a renunciation of the world combined with an active ethic of unconditional compassion. Nutshell-wise, it is simply full-scale world-negation and its shadow, unconditional altruism, with Buddha or Shiva on the label instead of Jesus of Nazareth. This world-negation allows for action-in-the-world only in the service of self-sacrifice, and as such, is no action at all. It's function is only to ease suffering in the short term as we await the ultimate transformation.  The New Man, on the other hand, views action as something possessed with trans-formative power!  It is perhaps even sufficiently trans-formative as to hold the potential for alteration of the ultimate transformation.  Action must always be aimed squarely at the eradication of the disease.  It is, of course, absolutely a strong possibility that our actions will be of no avail. They may even become the causes of regression. But if an ethic of ‘going down fighting’ indeed leads ultimately to the same end as that of 'comforting the dying during surrender', I must choose to work and to accomplish, even in the face of inevitable meaninglessness. For me, working within the illusion holds the possibility of understanding it. Convinced that there is no ‘right or wrong,’ at least between these two alternatives, I’ll pay the cover and take my chances.

The Agenda:  Knowing, then, that the only pathway leading forward is that of razing the entire edifice of present-day civilization, our work is cut out for us, to say the least.  Our preaching becomes the most radical preaching ever preached and the most unsettling preaching ever heard.  If anyone thinks of Christ’s Gospel as ‘radical’ teaching, such a one will stand in utter stupefication in the face of a message that extols the renunciation of EVERYTHING, including itself!



The beauty of our renunciation, however, is that it signals a beginning, not the end.  For in spite of the fact that a new ‘program’ or ‘formula’ are not advocated by our agenda, the admonition to discover ones own truth remains, not as a prescription, but more as the only legitimate response to the inescapable imperative of choice that we encounter in the form of ‘living’ at any given moment.  Our hand-me-down ethic, bequeathed to us down through the centuries of so-called civilization, has always been a socially inspired ethic.  That is, it is its job is to facilitate the perpetuation of a given social order, and to do so in such a way that the power remains in the hands of the ‘Chiefs,’ and never becomes the possession of the Braves.  This ethic is firmly entrenched in all educational and cultural processes, and is especially notable in the overall patterns of child-rearing.  Because parents in our culture become terrified of their own inadequacies and incompetence once their progeny has arrived, they turn away from trusting themselves, opting instead to do what?  To take on the formulas suggested by the experts, the cultural experts whose job it is to insure that the young grow up to be carbon copies of the old.  This pattern of clinging to the status quo is at the root of all of humanity’s great ills.  Falling back becomes a way of life, handed down to us surreptitiously in the guise of 'tradition.'  Falling forward is a curiosity at best; and at worst an alliance with unreality.  The alternative to this pattern of social xeroxing is obvious, and that is, to cultivate individuality and not conformity.  But the obvious, unfortunately, is that which is most often misunderstood.

This is not meant to suggest that we shouldn’t be influenced by those rare instances of greatness that do arise from time to time.  There are those whom we should rightly desire to emulate; individuals who have learned to embrace walking in the shadows in order that they may arrive at the true source of light.  The imperative here is simply that we stand with The New Man against the mindless following of the herd and its herd philosophy that says 'do as suggested so you can remain an atomic piece of the whole!’  The one principle that must be applied consistently to our task is that of the dismantling of the traditional.  Ideologies wear out.  Most are ill conceived and designed only for the maintenance of mediocrity from their inceptions.  And so it is that only through summoning the courage to tear down the past are we able to come into a right relationship with the present.  And the most effective way of dismantling the past and its grip on our notions of right action and thought is to consider in detail all of the forces that stand, through any and all disciplines of knowledge, in opposition to those granite idols.

The Concept of 'Play'

Greetings from Fun City. Life choices are based largely upon existing cultural models. It's like eating at a restaurant. You order from what's on the menu, and it's the rare exception when you order anything that's not on the menu. And if you'd prefer something that's not on the menu, it becomes a crap-shoot as to whether or not you'll get what you want. They'll either accommodate you...or they won't. But the attainment of your desire is entirely beyond your control. Your success or failure is dependent upon the structure of the model, in this case, 'stuff they've actually got in the kitchen.' This then, is the cultural 'model' for the experience of 'eating out.' The same modeling concept applies equally to the slightly more elaborate concept of life choices. The culture in which you are immersed provides you with a convenient menu of options and presents them as the ‘norms’ for the attainment of your purposes in what may well be your one and only life. This urgency is what produces, in humans alone, the phenomenon we call ‘existential angst.’ It’s the knowledge that all we have are our choices in the face of an inevitable death, and to make the wrong ones (in the long-term, anyway) is basically the same thing as pissing our lives away. There are two aspects we deal with in making life choices; one is the ‘what,’ or the specifics that our actions will entail, the other is the ‘how,’ or the ‘basic philosophy’ we choose to adopt regardless of how we handle the specifics. It is in the ‘how’ that all committed hedonists, libertines, radicals, pagans, heathens---whatever handle you choose to self-apply---are joined at the hip. It is in the understanding of the concept of Play.


The concept of Play is fundamental to human development, but is virtually non-existent in the world-view of our day. Modern American culture, defined by the corporate will, the corporate state, and corporate propaganda---all underwritten for the most part by the fundamentalist right---offers up a cultural model that is nothing more than a sham to intelligent individuals. It's the white-collar conservative sell-out lifestyle that has built an entire nation of neurotic psychopaths who have long ago given up on any consideration of the notion of the 'meaning of life.' The cultural model poses the greatest threat to our young people; they always know the truth intuitively, but all too seldom know that they know it. Through the combination of insecurity and the unceasing inculcation of the 'conformity message,' most of them will sooner or later fall victim to the lie. By the time they figure out that they had it right in the first place, they're 45 and will spend the rest of their lives trying to recover what they already knew when they were 17. And what did they know? They knew what it meant to play. To play, is to follow one's instincts. To play is to follow one's bliss. To play is to approach life with a determination to make your own choices, not those that are made for you by those who haven't the slightest understanding of who you are. (continued...)

More Proof That Size Matters

Pencil-legged girls are delicate flowers. So frail, so fragile, and so ultimately insecure. Only the Big Beautiful Woman is a real woman. She comes on with a power and sexuality that is born of strength and solidity.  Of fragility and weakness, she knows nothing. It is time to state plainly that whoever first came up with the bright idea to perpetuate the Kewpie-as-media-stereotype was a serious wuss. Intuitively, men know that Barbie Worship is an illusion.  It's a psycho-emotional trick they play on themselves, their punishment for allowing the idols of the System to determine every aspect of their makeup.

The truth is that in the depths of his being, a man wants a woman that challenges him, that strikes fear into his heart, and a woman that outclasses him physically presents just such a challenge. Toward her he has no illusions of dominance. With one severe glance and the subtlest show of force from her magnificent body, she will exert full control over him, keeping him in his place with ease, which, ironically enough, is exactly where he secretly wants to be. This is why the majority of men are so psychologically skewed. They’ve spent their entire lives, not to mention their entire human history, trying to be something they are not. They go on trying to pretend that they are the superior gender, that it is only they who possess the skill, cunning, and strength of mind and body to lead humanity back into paradise. The fact is that conclusive proof of precisely the opposite is available to anyone, 24 hours a day. Any time of day, any day of the week check out a newspaper or news broadcast and in less than 2 minutes you will have all the proof you’ll ever need that men know nothing about leading nations, or anything else.

What a man really wants is to surrender, to lay down his life at the feet of a huge, gorgeous woman and end the charade once and for all. She is clearly his superior and he recognizes it both inwardly and outwardly. The sad part is that he would easily find eternal inner peace and soul consolation in her service if only he were able to curb his colossal ego vis-à-vis the ridicule of the herd that he fears will be his ultimate undoing should he choose to act authentically and dedicate himself to her. The fact that his ego, in a vast majority of cases, wins out over his vision of ultimate truth explains in a nutshell the barbaric, unevolved condition of our planet today. But the discussion of the desperate need for a Matriarchal world order is a separate subject upon which I have already and will continue to comment.

Suffice here to simply enforce the point that Big Beautiful Women are superior in every way to all the various forms of Twiggies and Barbies out there who think you become a real woman by counting calories and looking like a Kewpie doll.

Kewpie Doll: a girl with a pretty face and no body. She typically has no tits, a flat ass, and toothpick legs. She is the real-world embodiment of the System stereotype and is only attractive to men who are themselves psycho-lobotomized by the System media complex.

A Postmodern Curiosity: There’s a reason why they only show most newswomen from the neck up. It’s because from the neck down they look like pipe cleaners.
 
In closing I need to admonish all you guys out there to have some balls, for God's sake.  If you're lucky enough to be involved with a Big Beautiful Woman, don't even think about being one of the sorry multitude of lame-ass Closet FA's!  If you can't proudly take your exquisite Big Girl out on the town, show her off to the crowd, hold her hand, and hold her close like you mean it, then you don't deserve to even enter into her presence.  You need to seriously get it together, fuck the status quo bullshit, and get real with your real woman.  Jesus, do I really have to explain this stuff?  Obviously, I do.

So, Big Girls, keep rockin’ your magnitude with attitude, and if the bitch-goddess within wants to come out and crush a li’l man or two, or snap a li’l Twiggy in half with one swing of your big, voluptuous hips, I say go ahead and let ‘er rip!  This is your world now, BBW, and it’s high time you start taking over.

The Dominant Female & Her Message

As a confirmed lover, purveyor, and consumer of FemDom pornography I find it baffling that so many feminists are so vehemently opposed to my work. The argument, of course, is simple; that what I do, though it promotes women as objects of worship, nevertheless remains sexual objectification at the end of the day. Such a categorical stance is simply further proof that that the appeal to meta-narratives robs thinking of the very flexibility that allows it to operate as it should; freely moving in such fashion as to maximize its scope with regard to its object of consideration. And while I may be accused with some justification of regarding women TOO highly and thus placing them again outside the boundaries of those social ‘norms’ within which these feminists (generally speaking, of course) are adamant about being recognized, it would seem that I should nevertheless be credited with erring on the side of over-appraisal rather than under or non-appraisal. Well, you can’t win ‘em all.

In any case, my exalted view of the phenomenon of woman is certainly (and obviously, I think) not limited to the area of the sexual. Nor is it in any way tongue-in-cheek. I love women on every level. I believe they are quite simply God’s finest works by a staggering margin. If the ‘God’ thing is too much for you, then I am happy to replace the word ‘God’ with the word ‘Evolution’. It’s all the same in my mind. The biggest problem I see with this comprehensive mode of denouncing all things pornographic is that it first arose, in the main, out of the jealousy and indeed the contempt felt by the average housewife or working girl in the late 50’s and early 60’s for the fact that beautiful women were beginning to be rewarded JUST for being beautiful. No, no, they objected! It cannot be in any way construed as ‘fair’ that hotties make more money simply by posing for the camera than the working girl makes in her 40 hr. week as slave to the grind. And I can certainly sympathize! The feeling of being somehow cheated by such an arrangement is only natural. But the objections should be leveled at the manufacturer, not at the girl. Nature, for whatever reasons, saw fit to endow her with a certain appearance. Picketing Nature, then, or perhaps the girl’s parents for their genetic predisposition, makes infinitely more sense than picketing the offices of prurient publishers.

Before the evolution of the media, hot women only had two options, stripping and prostitution. But then came Hefner. Suddenly, beautiful women were appearing on the pages of a high-profile, professionally designed, and, no matter what anyone may say, socially viable publication. Now a girl had the option of being photographed as opposed to selling her body concretely. Those who don’t grasp the profound difference between these two modes of erotic commerce are in deeper denial than the worst substance addicts. The difference constitutes an absolute polarity.

I am well-acquainted with the con argument here as well. It runs along these lines; that selling the image is still selling the body, at least as far as the male consumer is concerned. He continues to pay his money and achieve his orgasm at the moral and ethical expense of the model. But even the most cursory analysis of this argument reveals its fatal weakness. The basis of this typical argument against any kind of pornography is that open sexuality is immoral. It’s as simple as that. And what is this but a judgment based upon whatever subjective factors its proponent wants to invoke? In truth, the problem with prostitution was and is it’s health risks to both participants, and its relinquishing of control on the part of the woman in terms of her physical safety. Whether or not general social consensus dictates that the concrete act of facilitating a man’s orgasm is immoral couldn’t be more irrelevant to the differences between physical prostitution and adult modeling. There is no point here in a lengthy exposition on the benefits of safety, anonymity, convenience, and all the other elements that create the widest of gulfs between pornography and prostitution. They are self-evident. The point is simply that modern media allows women and men to participate in erotic pleasure in ways that remove the threat of physical consequences from the equation.

What has been said thus far is applicable to pornography in general, but the real discussion here is meant to deal with the phenomenon of Female Domination specifically. So, to return to the argument, it is a fact that men who are truly submissive to dominant women do not see them as soulless, objectified entities. They see them as queens, as goddesses, as the beings most worthy of a man’s worship, unconditional love, and purest affection. The fact that there is also a raging sexual attraction at work in the mix only enhances the value of such a woman in the man’s esteem. We who worship powerful, beautiful women recognize them as our superiors in every sense. It is difficult to see how such an all-encompassing love and reverence for these women can in any way be construed as degrading or dehumanizing. Again, we recognize the fact that any complaints against this kind of reverence must come from women who are not fortunate enough to be endowed with the same physical gifts. But do not these women, in turn, generally possess gifts not granted to the dominatrix? They do, and yet we don’t generally hear the female dominant complaining that the woman who is born with a gift for, say, painting, has an unfair advantage in the art world. She doesn’t feel cheated if the woman who has a natural flair for mathematics and science can get a better job than she in the field of physics.

The truth is that the merits of our subject regarding the kinds of actions that empower women and the kinds that perpetuate servile attitudes toward men cannot be judged in accordance with any kind of comprehensive application. To coin the cliché, they do not exist in a vacuum. They depend greatly upon the particular circumstances and upon the individual(s)involved. In pointing this out, I should also clarify that I have not meant to suggest here that all adult modeling experiences are positive ones. Such a claim is obviously absurd. Female domination, as a pornographic vocation at any rate, is no different for a woman than any other job. There are good situations and bad situations. You can work with good people or evil people. And if it should turn out that you’re putting forth a message that women are objects to be controlled by men, you can at least be appeased by the knowledge that the content of that message is that a woman can and will kick the shit out of a man any time she feels like it. Of course, if it turns out that a great number of women find the content and the message to be that of empowering women to keep men in their places, and to use them for the purpose of vocational gain, how can that be a bad thing?



Well, the real bottom line to this discussion is that what is far more important than any particulars of belief is simply the reaffirmation that trying to legislate or codify morality and ethics within the tight confines of any system, particularly those systems still steeped in the anachronous puritanical standards of what are fast becoming our distant ancestors, is that we awaken ourselves and others to the understanding that each of us is a molecule in motion within the grand flow of evolution. But this understanding comes only by conscious choice. We may either open ourselves to the individual growth and progress inherent in that grand flow, or we may choose to try resisting it, kicking against the pricks, as it were. The former choice is the choice of expanding consciousness, tolerance, and ever-deepening harmony, both within and without. The latter choice will always represent the denial of inevitable change, and with it the prejudice, dissonance, and self-aggrandizement that has always and continues to manifest itself in the form of a world in the throes of utter dysfunction, and indeed, self-destruction.

So, in closing, let’s get back to the notion of a free society. If you disagree with what I’m doing, exercise your freedom and don’t read it. FemDom is not going to destroy civilization. In fact, I make the argument elsewhere in my writings that it may well SAVE civilization. I know from long experience that it is among the most difficult of endeavors to stimulate the opening of closed minds. I also know that many feminists, moralists, fundamentalists, and a few other ‘ists’ are always going to denounce me as a misogynist simply because that’s the way they’re wired. But it will always be incumbent upon me to defend my adoration of women by demonstrating at the very least that the arguments for that denunciation are at best the products of spurious and invalid reasoning, and at worst patently false.