Far from the purview of European / American men were two conceptual weapons which could be alternated arbitrarily, wielded in an instant by feminists (or wielded similarly and unwittingly by neo-traditional women, for that matter), as equipped with the cynicism of these memes to dismiss, in either case, recourse to two profoundly important European moral orderings.
Most significantly, one weapon was to deride Europe’s natural Aristotlean morality, its observation of optimality and relationships as central to human nature, and another to destroy the propositions and principles initiated by the likes of Kant to gird, e.g., against arbitrary vicissitudes of empirical philosophy being taken too far – but in either case, the weapons distinguish females (including White females, of course) as having a separate moral order not beholden to White men and thus not beholden to Europeans as a system with shared social, moral capital and human ecology of millennia.
Deep within the wallowing abyss of de Beauvoir’s “The Second Sex”, its talk of “sacred ministry of betrayal” feeding extant dissatisfactions in females, lurked these weapons - far out of the casual purview of White men to apprehend from whence came what hit them and what it was about.
Betty Friedan (1963), with the modernist, “she’s just like one of the boys and, if liberated to participate, may do-so as an equal” approach to feminism, was the preeminent figure in the second wave of feminism; she took as her point of departure this line from Simone de Beauvoir, 1948, page 672: “This utility of the housekeeper’s heaven is the reason why she (speaking of traditional women) adopts the Aristotlean morality of the golden mean, that is, of mediocrity.”
My hunch that was her source inspiration is borne-out through multiple connections.
Carol Gilligan (1982), with the neo-traditional angle focusing on qualitative differences of females, but still within the feminist framework, also took a line from de Beauvoir as her point of departure - 1948, Page 681: “ but she knows that he himself has chosen the premises on which his rigorous deductions depend.. but she refuses to play the game.. she knows that male morality as it concerns her, is a vast hoax.”
My observation that this was the source for Gilligan was confirmed by Helen Haste, a colleague of Gilligan’s at Harvard.
While there are other significant non-Jewish feminists, forebears besides de Beauvoir, it is true that de Beauvoir’s feminist philosophy has roots in Marx’s notion that marriage and patriarchy are veritable slavery - women’s “liberation requires that these institutions be overturned, a revolutionary act corresponding to liberation of all.”
The situation was made ripe for exploitation and runaway by the logical extension of modernity, well-meaning at first as a liberation from mere, but harmful traditions and superstitions, it ran rough-shod and ruptured accountable social classification – their utility naivly or disingenuously pushed-aside in favor of the objectivist scientism of Lockeatine civil rights, objectivist neo-liberal capitalism, and seized upon in distortion by “neo-cons”, but not before these wielded “objectivist” rights were fundamentally weaponized and reversed in form against Whites, by Jews, Marxists re-deploying these ideas in the form of “anti-racism” and “civil rights” - discrimination against Whites and the prohibition of discrimination by White men.
Underpinning susceptibility to this all along was their saboteurs ticking time-bomb - liberal affectation planted into European culture and becoming more deeply embedded over 2,000 years; viz., in contrast to the exclusivity of Jews, (as GW notes) Judeo-Christianity’s propositional altercast as undifferentiated gentiles in the eyes of god, to include any race in its moral order, and the disordering effect of modernity to traditional European moral orders was virtually a necessary consequence.
With racial bounds broken but classification still necessary to human perceptual organization, the least ignorable categories emerged in de facto high relief and resonance – gender being one of them. Within the disorder the female one-up position in partner selection (don’t think so? she’ll call upon the goon squad to show you who is boss) emerged with increased significance, whereupon they are pandered-to from males of every direction and most importantly, cynically and cunningly, by Jews, of course, to betray their co-evolutionary men. With White men vilified thus and White females pandered-to constantly, even puerile White females become articulate, over- confident, correspondingly under-empathetic, sometimes brazen with self righteous entitlement and prerogative. Jewish interests can take advantage of this; demoralize their adversaries by pandering to their co-evolutionary females in this position and the atavistic denominator of the disorder; promoting the high contrast tropism of White/ black mixing – blacks being the other category hardest to ignore despite prohibition on classifications – while the prohibition of discrimination leaves the more protracted rate of maturity of White men susceptible to the more episodic assertion of blacks.
Professor Pearce (with Rossi) might add that within the paradoxic performance requirements of feminism there is nothing even a well-intentioned male can do if a feminist wishes to put him in the wrong: If he treats her as one of boys, then he may be construed as a male chauvinist pig, who does not respect the special quality of her gender. If he treats her with deference to the special qualities of her gender, he can be construed as a condescending patriarch and a wimp who does not respect her agency, autonomy and independence.
The situation is only going to be perpetuated by a paradoxic (really, “quaradoxic”) phenomenon that Whites are prone to be up against, what I call the charmed loop of didactic incitement: This does require that sufficient power is brought to bear against Whites, but it is a likely predicament given social injunctions against discriminatory social classifications rendered by White men and the heavily pandered-to one-up position of females within the disorder of modernity; along with its exponentially more powerfully positioned puerile female inclination to incite genetic competition.
The Dark Side of Self Actualization Intersecting Incommensurate Gender Agendas: Corrective Structures and Systematization -
In this essay I will re-tell the story of how I began to understand and organize gender relations at the intersection of race and individualism in order to diagnose attendant problems and prescribe corrections. I will make refinements with what I have learned since initial instantiations of this hypothesis. I feel compelled to make this case again as there are popular sites in WN which are taking on the issue and I do not trust them to handle it well. For very specific reasons I have long held that there should be a platform for White men/males that both advocates them and is critical of female predi- lections, inclinations, politics. This will start out with a critical tone, as it is necessary to get to the critical parts right away, but there is a happy ending for both genders.
In my first renderings of this hypothesis, I took Maslow’s Hierarchy of needs (which he also referred-to as a hierarchy of motives), as a preliminary framework in need of correction. That remains a particularly useful point of departure for a working hypothesis to address problems: of where and how individualism, peoples’ predica- ment within modernity and incommensurate gender relations may be exacerbated and pandered-to; whether by hostile interests (e.g., YKW) or indifferent interests (e.g. naive or disingenuous objectivist/relativists, neo-liberals); thereby rupturing racial bounds which could otherwise facilitate systemic homeostasis; where instead runaway and reflexive reversals are perpetuated - e.g., “the dark side of self actualization.”
“I don’t have to tell you about the tyranny of patterns, that is the rubric under which we meet. What you may not know is that you have to accept them.” - Bateson
But rather than merely accept them, the proposition here is that we recognize them, take them to heart and work with them instead of against them.
For good reasons, I took Maslow as the preliminary framework against which to propose corrections (will explain momentarily). Neither is it necessary to discard the diagnosis of toxicity in this model of higher needs being founded in hierarchical succession upon maximal fulfillment of more fundamental needs, particularly as it has played-out in - and been an influence of - the pop-culture of European-American relations; nor is it necessary to alter its proposed general correction of taking attendance to needs and motives into a circulating process based on the Aristotlean recommendation of optimal levels of need satisfaction and the centrality of human concern for relations.
Unlike Maslow’s terms for the constituent needs, I have ever (since the early 90s) proposed four terms (the number of four terms are taken for reasons that I will explain) in place of the terms that he uses in this hierarchy –
Socialization, Being, Routine/Reverence and Self Actualization in a circulating management are proposed instead.
“Just a few more words added to his grammar of motives might change a sociopath into a decent man.” - Kenneth Burke
The number 4 is chosen deliberately as it is both simple, evident and comprehensive enough to be practical, sufficiently verifiable for practical purposes, but too complex in its interfaces to reify and take too far into theoretical science, to scientism beyond its intended function in phronesis - practical judgment for use by ordinary people, where practical judgment is necessary and the best one can do as we are engaged in necessary regard to praxis - the multi-interactive and reflexive flux of our relations in the social world. A quaternary system has other positive qualities, such as having been used by venerable scholars and religions, but that’s enough of that for now.
Most significant of the four terms of need/motivation proposed as an alternative from Maslow’s has always been “Socialization.”
This is to acknowledge that we are inextricably social creatures. There is no way around that, it is the most fundamental need and the most basic fact of the human condition. The moment there is nobody left to discuss the facts is the moment that the facts begin to lose any relevance to us.
Undoing “the prejudice against prejudice”, re-institutionalizing the validity of social classification, discrimination thereupon to facilitate accountability, historical/ systemic human ecology of our social capital is necessary to a socialization of Whites/Europeans.
That forms the most fundamental correction to what has been an important error in a false and toxic prioritization of self actualization in spite of social concern.
Socialization is proposed in relation to three other needs, rather hypothesized topoi of needs, of European character, inclination, predilections and susceptibilities as such, in need of enhancement and correction: Being, Routine/Reverence, Self Actualization.
All four categories more or less correspond with Maslows’ needs, but are taken into a proposition of a circulating process, systematized for optimal balance.
A fundamental change from previous renditions of this hypothesis is that I replace the term Selfhood with what I believe is the more helpful heuristic structure of “Routine/ Reverence” (corresponding some with sacrament and maybe ceremony), as instrumental corrective for homeostasis in the systemic management of Socialization (of European classification), Being and Self Actualization.
Recognizing the value of Routine/Reverence (e.g., over and against the continuous transformations called forth by modernity) will help to stabilize the system, make it more just and sane all around; helping with its cybernetic governance through its endorsement, respect and practice.
Routine/Reverence will correspond with practice, responsibility and duty to inherited, tried and true structures, knowledge and requirements of social capital.
Routine/Reverence will also correspond to corporeal and autobiographical/narrative aspects of seflhood - in terms of maintenance, respect for inherited corporeal, corprisocial, biological structure and gauging the more speculative autobiographical quests against the true and venerable auto/biography.
Reverence will be reserved for what bears a more special acknowledgement, sacred for its essential value to the pattern beyond normal episode and perhaps ennobled in ceremony as a special kind of routine.
I believe this is a crucial level, insufficiently articulated and valued by Maslow’s scheme, as it places “Self Actualization above it”, where it recognizes these needs as important at all. Routine/reverence is something that needs to be satisfactory for White males to achieve (whereas White females have been able to take this for granted as “enough” expected of them), but has been hard to engage within the disorder of modernity and expectations of “greatness”, let alone that a male might be allowed “to Be” without stigma and incitement.
Nevertheless, I do recognize and believe that it is inherent in our European character, for some of us, anyway, to have highly ambitious reach, and to need to fulfill inborn potential. That is a part of the quaternary system - the neo-traditional male (and modernist female) option, which may be moved into when the time is right for a given individual. I wouldn’t want to stand in the way and remove this potential but on the contrary; would have our people strive after achievement through better foundation, with and upon sane motivational grounds of practiced routines, reverence, particularly in respect of socialization and midtdasein - being amidst the class – to keep them from malevolent transformations, especially against our own – with the capacity, flexibility of unused potentiality for change, the alternative range of functional autonomy and agency, self actualization may recognize the need to return and deliberately return to Being, Routine/Reverence and the ubiquitous fact of Socialization.
It is rather to acknowledge problems not only for actualization’s realization, but also in the very worthiness of the quest, of its quest becoming toxic - to its seekers, to relations, and in the implication of continuous transformation and upheaval of social structures, even resulting in reflexive reversals, for the unnatural and anti-social cast of its popular apprehension.
Further, when you think about it, the “ordinary” is really pretty incredible and ought to be respected as such, not so ordinary: Here we are these walking blobs of protoplasm, if not European creatures having survived in discreet form for 41,000 years. How dare they end this beauty? How dare they deny us Being?
Thus, recognition of the gilded virtue of routine and reverence for venerable patterns of the aeons can oppose liberal modernity and the continual imploring of individual “Actualization”, oppose the feral, puerile female incitement to genetic competition and the pandering to that which ruptures social classification’s systemic delimitation and homeostasis (for Whites).
Obstruction, runaway, over-corrective reflexive reversals –non-correction, non-homeo- stasis - the dark side of self actualization, is mapped for its problems against Maslow’s and similarly pop implications of self actualization –its dark side and its correction on an overlapping but ameliorative model of neo-Aristotlean self actualization.
Correcting it with a neo-Aristotlian notion of Self Actualization has been the objective from the onset of this project. It is “neo” in the sense of placing Socialization to the forefront but thoroughly Aristotlean in emphasizing Optimality as guiding framework. With an additional and embarrassing refinement since my first versions. Namely, that in my focusing on correcting the Maslowian and pop notions of self actualization that I’d forgotten that the idea of self actualization came from Aristotle to begin with (had read it, but years ago) and was only reminded again by Greg Johnson’s discussion of Aristotle and self actualization. Thus, I will try to refine the discussion in light of his talks; though I must say, my fundamental hypothesis remains the same, as it was sound to begin with. Still, its being Aritotlean in origin only underscores the depth of its Europeanness as a concept and the need to get it right – including corrections for error that may have come along through Aristotle.
Returning to the fundamental hypothesis of where Maslow provides a good starting point to illustrate a wrong turn in popular apprehension as it was taken to the mismanagement of gender relations, in runaway of modernity, instigated by its over-emphasis on individualism and individual achievement, in detriment of individual, gender and racial homeostasis. And how, ultimately, a neo-Aristotlean model is the proper model for reconstruction of European group, individual and gender relations.
Importantly, Maslow’s hierarchy helps illustrate incommensurate gender agendas of need fulfillment and to trace exacerbation in the context of ruptured racial systemic bounds - the notion of individual rights having priority over social groups – notably in the Lockeatine individual rights of The U.S. Constitution having warrant over group interests – for Whites, anyway (as Jewish interests have construed “rights”).
Originally, I noticed that there was something non-trival to the hippies. It bothered me as it was swept aside the moment the Viet Nam war was over. With the observation that the first renowned hippie get-together was called “a Be-in” (in Golden Gate Park, near Haight-Ashbury), I had a clue that they sought Being, and obviously that, as opposed to being treated as so intrinsically valueless as to be drafted into a war which presented no clear and immanent danger to our people. The draft being more or less a habitual expectation of males, in utter disrespect for the intrinsic value of their human capital. It was also obvious that it was only males who were not afforded this value of intrinsic Being. Then I noticed that this mapped against Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.
Next, I noticed that neither feminists, traditional women or (what I’d now call) ‘right wingers’ gave a damn. When Viet Nam war was over, the time for male Being was over.
As I looked into it more, the source of my anger and this way of looking at the issue as a clarifying heuristic made more and more sense.
Eventually, in the early to mid 80’s, I started to read some Heidegger, who gave a clue that one ought to set one’s life in historical autiobiographical perspective. Further, with Heidegger’s preoccupation with Being, I was drawn once again to the being issue of hippie males; with autobiographical/historical context, an obvious comparison emerged to feminism’s second wave coming around the same time; and how feminism went into vicious overdrive, annihilating the hippie agenda when the war was over - feminism was no longer confronted with an obvious disadvantage to being a male.
Thus, despite distaste for feminism, I read its most essential literature on our historical horizon: Friedan, de Beauvoir, Gurley-Brown; later, added Gilligan to the list.
Friedan provided a very pleasant surprise for what I had already taken for a hypothetical framework - as she not only worked within the same Maslowian structure in which I sought to place the oh-so-fundamental complaint of hippies – a right-below-rights as Rollo May called it – but she was, in fact, a student of Maslow. Moreover, her very thesis was that women’s liberation required Maslowian “self actualization” for women. That they were oppressed and suffering for this lack.
I also noticed that she made no mention of injustices to men, nothing about their basic needs not being met or anything like that, nor their expendability in war, but nevertheless implicated their privileged access to “self actualization.”
Her implication with the Maslowian paradigm is clear – that men were disproport- ionately represented on top levels of “Self Actualization” because their basic needs were fulfilled and because patriarchy discriminated unjustly on their behalf.
I scarcely needed to go beyond personal example or that of other males, but the particularly glaring example of hippie male’s protest against draft into a corporate war, their pathetically low grumbles for mere Being, prompted realization that Friedan’s was not a fair assessment.
I was willing to concede that some men may occupy self actualization as a result of fulfilled basic needs and that some were there due to unfair discrimination, but not all – the discrimination had a more fair compensatory basis than feminists were granting and further - some men were achieving not for a Maslowian fulfillment of basic needs, but a Nietzschean/Freudian sublimation of deprivation and privation. While traditional women did not seem particularly concerned and had the same usual expectations despite changing contexts, feminists cared shockingly little if not displaying outright hostility to male concerns – it became apparent that they were attacking men, their own men, often punishing them for achieving despite little support and much adversity on the way up – if they got to the top despite all, punishing them for being at an oppressive advantage! You want to talk about what may create a misogynist, bad gender relations and a dark, reflexive reversal of self actualization into sociopatholgy?
These gender agendas mapped against Maslow’s hierarchy of needs quite well, feminists having what he called “high grumbles” - a complaint for higher achievement, their basic needs having been met; the hippie agenda mapped well too, but was unarticulated for males, with their “grumbles very low” - for the most basic needs – right to be, exist, midtdasein and not be required, e.g., to die in senseless war.
Particularly for the American man, in the land of opportunity, where anyone was supposed to “be all they could be” and make it of themselves, achievement of the top of actualization was to be a quest that began by pulling himself up by the bootstraps and pursued through rugged individualism, with little empathy for meandering in traditional female expectations let alone help in feminist cynicism.
The male agenda was very difficult to articulate, stigmatic in fact, for what it sought (midtdasein), for lack in feedback for males as they were not in the addressive position that females were, and as it went against tradition for males to need cooperation if not to be left alone in provisional non-productivity – necessary though unused potent- iality for change was with modernity having transformed traditional society such that there was no longer stable criteria for satisfactory and reliable reciprocal participation.
Jews used cover of hippies to try to associate their cause with Jewish politics, while right-wingers, feminist or traditional women find it convenient to take these Jewish ruses and blame hippies for the downfall of the White race; but this is idiotic. The authentic motive of hippies, being (accurately, midtdasein), had nothing to do with Marcuse’s pandering affectation of “free love” - a law of the jungle attitude toward sex is farthest from being for males – let alone with imposition of foreign males: black power and “civil rights” as well being Jewish imposed agendas incommensurate with hippies. 2nd wave feminism was also incommensurate to the hippie agenda -in diametric contrast, feminists sought individual autonomy atop the hierarchy in self actualization, while hippies sought fundament in communal being - midtdasein. White women’s particular concerns were not going to be reconciled with White men’s under Jewish auspices of Friedan/ Maslow. Though our gender relations should be reconciled, might be through attendance and correction of this paradigm, the value and purpose of the hippie agenda as part of a homeostatic process has been buried to this day.
So, it seemed that Maslow, hippies and feminists were a good place to start to understand where we went wrong and how we might correct our relations. It has proved to be true and has shown to be better still in terms of utility.
Bear with me, I’m not advocating passive, soft men, or men/women, I’m arguing against stupid, non-European ways, fighting for wrong reasons, in wrong ways or against each other; and am rather for being against the right enemies, viz., those significantly powerful non-Europeans who might impose and impose others upon us, significant traitors to our autonomy from non-Europeans, intransigent non-European interlopers – but against these we should fight with the appropriate, most effective level of assertion; there it is requisite that men fight when the threshold of awareness and understanding among European peoples is sufficient; then coordination is ripe.
Nor are we proposing something oppressive and unfair to women - on the contrary, between re-institution of sacrament and our typically good natured ways toward our co-evolutionary women, we Europeans have significant advantages against adversaries.
Nevertheless: No Boundaries No Being. Being is a verb, pacifism is not an option.
Part 2 to come . . .