|
|
|
Re-Evaluating The Hierarchy of Motives: An Optimizing Process of Motives for The White Class re-evaluating and re-ordering motives for an optimal process of the White Class Majority Rights has a highly capable commentatariat on posted material. Because of that, I would like to experiment with this post, treating it more honestly as a series of hypotheses rather than an unequivocal assertion of the truth. As such, I invite the commentariat to shape and craft these hypotheses for the better of our European peoples, wherever they are. Let me begin with one caveat, however: I use terms of Maslow’s hierarchy of motives not to promote it, but on the contrary to subject it to critique and deconstruction. It is hypothesized that not only does it have a dark side that negatively impacts White sociality; but it is also peculiarly relevant, albeit in a negative sense, as it was adopted and applied by one of his students, Betty Friedan, to women’s liberation in highly influential effect. …… Emanating from The U.S. Constitution and impacting the rest of the world is the liberal notion, the Lockeatine technology of civil individual rights, which are disposed to rupture social classifications, such as race, the ecology and accountability thereof. There is yet another pernicious, liberal, highly individualistic notion with wide ramifications also coming from the United States: the notion of Self Actualization along with its little acknowledged dark side. The American version of the human potential narrative became a prominent cultural theme through Abraham Maslow’s notion of a hierarchy of motives that culminated in self-actualization. Self-Actualization would be a particularly appealing narrative of America – what, after all, is America for if not the realization of potential? It is hypothesized here that the overvaluation and promotion of Self Actualization has similar effects to Lockeatine rights in that it is a modernizing notion based on a-social individualism with an implicative force of social disorder and aberration. Specifically, Maslow’s “hierarchy of needs” posits that as people’s most basic needs are fulfilled, “their lower grumbles are satisfied”, they move onto higher quests culminating in “Self Actualization.”
2. The human potential narrative as represented by Maslow’s hierarchy of needs/motives – where one fulfills a quantity of basic needs, each step a lower grumble proceeding to a higher grumble before moving onto the next level, culminating in self actualization – is a popularly appealing feature of American culture and it is problematic – it has a dark side. 3. It can become toxic, as it is based on a notion of maxima, rather than optima: whereas Aristotle noted that people are biological creatures, requiring optimal, not maximal levels of need satisfaction. More, it tends to run roughshod over the basic needs of people as mammals, who care most deeply about close personal relationships. 4. For its view toward special achievement, it devalues basic needs, ordinary skills and socialization. Hence, it has an implicative force exacerbating Lockeatine civil individual rights in rupturing and disordering ecology and accountability to the White Class. 5. Betty Friedan (1963), the pre-eminent figure in the second wave of feminism 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.” 6. She proposed that women need Self Actualization to be liberated; as per the hierarchy of motives of her teacher, Abraham Maslow – who thus, becomes relevant again, not only for general impact on social order, but as a guiding light of second wave, modernist feminism. 7. This motive was not sympathetic to, but rather incommensurate with, the unfulfilled basic needs of White men – their “low grumbles”, a demand for Being, the recognition of their intrinsic human value in protest of its flagrant denial by the Viet Nam draft. 8. Once the Viet Nam War was over, any semblance of sympathy to the already stigmatic, by western standards, male motive to Be, was pushed aside. Gloria Steinem’s Ms. magazine only made money one year – 1973. That same year, the long term incumbent New York Senator, Emmanuel Cellar (infamous architect of the 1965 Immigration and Naturalization Act), was shockingly unseated by Elizabeth Holtzman, who ran on the proposed Equal Rights Amendment for women. It is not coincidental that feminism peaked in popularity and began to take off after the Viet Nam War had ended. 9. There has been a post modern feminist attempt to re-establish the qualitative differences of women as that which should be championed, rather than their mimicking traditional male quests: Carol Gilligan (1982) 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.” 10. With that, she put forth the hypothesis that women had a discreetly different moral order from men. That “female morality” is based on Care and Relationships; they are afraid when people are isolated and separated; while “male morality” is based on principles and justice - they are more afraid when people are brought together. Though it is neo traditional and post modern to an extent, it remained relatively unsympathetic to White male needs; (probably would look toward the traditional male quest for actualization as “the” male way; being and selfhood as “the” female way) and had the more general effect of antagonizing any semblance of Kantian morals. 11. Not only were appeals for basic levels of needs for White men, their low grumbles, stigmatic, but their situation was complicated by the one-up position of White females taking on a new dimension. 12. Lockeatine rights having prohibited classification through Cartesian quest, the one-up position of females in partner selection is increased to new significance as they are pandered to from more directions, from formerly out-groups. This may grant all too easily the predilections of puerile females – perhaps inclined to over-value masculinity. 13. This increased one-up position and prohibition of classificatory social bounds would also exacerbate the female tendency to incite genetic competition; taken as a mere natural fact as per E.O. Wilson, rather than a cultural artifact, it would further break down White class loyalty, ecology and further the implicative effect of modernist disorder and non-accountability. 14. Going back to the second wave of feminism and its scientistic influence on culture: Helen Gurley Brown’s popular, but no less influential, Sex and The Single Girl, and spin off magazine, Cosmopolitan, based women’s liberation on freedom from the traditional, rigid expectation of virginity upon marriage - taking Soren Kierkegaard’s Either/Or, she asserted that a girl is going to suffer either way, whether she has premarital sex or remains “as virginal as a Sunkist orange.” With that, H.G. Brown promoted a pragmatic disposition toward sex as opposed to a sacralizing one. 15. Both the Lockeatine empirical notion of civil individual rights and the Maslowian hierarchy of needs to self actualization need to be deconstructed and replaced with an optimal negotiation of White individuals in their relationships on behalf of The White Class. 16. Rather than a hierarchy of motives culminating in self-actualization, an optimal negotiation of motives is proposed. 16. The constituents proposed: Socialization, Being, Selfhood and Self Actualization – these are all compelling motives to Whites. They are hard to be rid of and probably should not be entirely rid of, but should be rearranged and managed properly. 17. Of these four components, only Socialization is real – that is asserted not only because it is true enough, but in order to redress the epistemological blunder (a disruption through Lockeatine Rights and Maslowian Actualization) of Cartesian disconnection from our social relation and responsibility as Whites– a White social classification: one might achieve something like Being, Selfhood or Self Actualization, but outside of the Social realm it won’t last long or have much meaning to the extent that it exists at all. 18. Being is meant to designate the most fundamental, organic living for humans; characterized by a qualitative meandering; it goes along with the statement, “let me be” as in, “leave me alone and let me live.” It is relevant as a motive for Whites in two very important ways: one, it is about organic survival, which is our fundamental concern as native Europeans (fighting our dispossession and genocide) and two, it is a necessary motive which has nevertheless been denied to White men through stigmatization and even legal prohibition. 19. Selfhood is proposed as a motive as it designates an ordinary, everyday identity – a coherent autobiography to provide for accountability; people need routines and basic skills; it is to suggest that this ordinary level be re-valued with meaning and esteem. It is a post modern notion in that it recognizes that just because something is not new does not mean that it is not good or valuable. While the ordinary may have tended to be good enough for women and men in tradition, it has not tended to be enough according to the human potential narrative. Ironically, however, it would be difficult to achieve anything of merit without this level of reliable routine, training and skill. 20. The human potential movement’s devaluing of these levels of Being and Selfhood is in all likelihood, destructive and suggests that they should be re-valued; granting of Being – innocent until proven guilty - would provide White class membership based on intrinsic value as attested by 41,000 years of evolution; reserves of single sex partner for life hopefuls; some distribution of basic resource and reserve of higher reward upon merit. 21. In terms of Selfhood, ordinary skills, work, chores, routines might be revalued through something like the guilds, mentoring, and some degree of sacralization. 22. Traditionally, Being and Selfhood have tended to be granted to women more easily, while Actualization has tended to be reserved for some men, whether as compensation for the greater risks and sacrifices expected, or because they genuinely merited it by prevailing through more rigorous tests, their basic levels having been limited. 23. One force driving achievement by White men that feminism and the focus of Maslow’s hierarchy of motives ignored were the Nietzschean (adopted by Freud) sublimation of deprivation and privation of basic levels; not because they were fulfilled as per the Maslowian hypothesis. That is, some men in particular, had achieved not because their basic levels were fulfilled, but more-so for just the opposite reason – that they had been deprived and it had them achieving through desperation. Feminists were generally ignoring the fact that levels of achievement, “Actualization”, had to some extent, been reserved for men traditionally, as a compensation for their sacrifices on basic levels (of being), having to go to war, etc; or for the fact that if they made it through the more rigorous tests, that they often were, very good. 24. For its incommensurate and unsympathetic perspective, Jewish laced feminism, partaking of “the culture of critique”, took the perverted angle of ridiculing and attempting to take down White men as “privileged oppressors” who, in many instances had gotten their position not despite all, but “just because of traditional White male patriarchy and chauvinism.” Is it any wonder that some White men would be driven off the deep end? They were getting a double whammy of being ridiculed and becoming a target, for their “undue privilege”, if they did manage to achieve despite all hardships; i.e., for their “spoiled satisfaction on basic levels, undue privilege, and for the ‘all White boys club’ that had been reserved for them in high places.” Because of these incommensurate gender agendas the grounds to breed contempt between the genders and further rupture classificatory balance in relationship by the culture of critique was ripe. 25. The irresponsible bullying of ritual rights of passage produced harsh, overcompensating males. The suggestion is that there may be proper and improper levels of hazing in tests of manhood. Those cultures that are too hard will have deleterious effects on the social class, as will those that are too soft. Punished when he is down, he may find it difficult to trust and be prone to vast over-compensation. 26. At this point, the regaining of trust, the re-establishment of the intrinsic value of our people requires ameliorative measures: a bit more fluidity in negotiating an optimality of motives, which would rotate a little more flexibly and voluntarily, while not being quite so rigidly and permanently bounded by role and category. Class membership would be of less harsh variety – rather than applied in highly individualistic, coming of age ceremonies. Instead the rigorous test of merit and loyalty would be through fighting non-White incursions and traitors who aid and abet non-White antagonism – this fight would correspond more with proof of Actualization rather than right to Be: the survival of this fight will gradually sort out the genetically worthy. Let the fight with our enemies sort out who is unworthy; in the meantime, rather than compete against our own with charges of their inferiority (as is the wont of the alpha male syndrome – they cannot stop competing); consider them innocent until proven guilty - allow these ranks of the “ordinary” White men to be deployed against our enemies; and be surprised at what some of them accomplish; reward him with the sacral and the celebrative. Those who will not separate from non-Whites or will not allow for separation from them will have established themselves prima facie as unworthy. 27. However, these criteria nonetheless require a re-establishment of what Socialization means to us, as Whites - White Class: and in fact, what Actualization means for Whites: exemplary utility, support, defense and heroism on behalf of the White Class. 28. We do not want to jettison the notion of self-actualization for a couple of reasons. First, it would be wrong and not likely to succeed to try to thwart human ambition, as the Marxists had attempted. Second we want to get a hold of this compelling narrative and relativize its value as it counts to our ends; in that manner we may keep it within an optimal framework and mitigate its reflexive effects of stress, reversal to aberration, social disorder impacting accountability and ecology. 29. It is something that we can offer to our women as increased incentive to actively participate in defense and advance of the White class. Not only do we offer them protection through prohibition of rape and pedophilia, but unlike Muslims, for example, we delight in our women’s special accomplishments – providing that they participate in the intrinsic Being of the White class and the White male – at least to the point of innocent until proven guilty. 30. A fair and just participation of special achievement on the part of women would probably necessitate that they meet with somewhat more rigorous requirements on basic levels of Being and Selfhood (so that they are not too liberal upon actualization); unless rather, where they’d prefer the more traditional role – which we can easily offer as well, in this post modern quaternary system of White gender relations. 31. The enactment of a fair negotiation of White gender relations does, however, require a re-establishment of The White Class; with that, a critique, deconstruction and replacement of the Lockeatine prohibition of classification and the human potential narrative as found in Maslow’s hierarchy of motives culminating in Actualization – replaced with narrative more optimal for Whites. 32. Allowing men to partake more of Being and Selfhood would not preclude their quests of Actualization nor recommend that they forego them; rather, it would be more facilitative. As GW had noted, the hippie motive for Being was something like a withdrawal. That is true, and is not proposed as an end in itself, but rather a part of a replenishing and ongoing, reconstructive process – an optimal negotiated process of motives on behalf of the White Class: Being, Selfhood, Actualization and Socialization. While the White male agenda pointed to a requirement for Being, it needed Selfhood to be re-valued as well, the ordinary skills and routines; moreover, it requires a connection to White Social classification – membership inclusion in relation to all demographics of Europeans. As a general metaphor the rubric of European peoples being like a ship with fairly discreet compartments would be ecological. While you may balk that this is all so gay, or effeminate, you connect with the very difficulty, the very stigma that men and society are confronted with in re-ordering Maslow’s hierarchy of motives, to one based on optima and fluidity of motives on behalf of White survival. It is in opposition to a stoic acceptance of our death – “The stoic acceptance was an attempt to transubstantiate even the repugnant aspects of existence, the excremental, into the essentially divine.” – K. Burke. So, when “deconstructing” Maslow’s hierarchy and Friedan’s use of it (yes, now we are doing it to them) the tricks are: how to relativize Actualization to our interests, while elevating the value of Socialization, Selfhood and Being, in particular for White men? Being, a verb, may correspond with defending territory. All aspects may correspond with defending the people; all may participate of the sacral and the celebrative Sacral enclaves will anchor the class. Managed properly, we can offer woman a more actualized life than the traditional, while offering all of the traditional roles to those who would prefer them. They might achieve to their abilities, should that be their wish. Nevertheless, their basic levels will be only more secure. Much violence and disparagement of women probably stems from the aforementioned toxic effects of incommensurate gender agendas, with male needs being eclipsed. Men will be happier as their more organic motives are satisfied in the optimal management of motives and relations within the White class; and women will be subject to less violence and abuse. The White class, our socialization, will be balanced, not in runaway pursuit of Actualization, but rather, Actualization would be based on service to our White people. This would be aimed at correcting the very runaway Lockeatine individualism, disorder and non-accountability that Comments:2
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 06 Dec 2012 01:24 | # First, welcome Daniel. That’s quite a complex opener you have given us. You began with Maslow but you appear to have fitted around him so many conceptual prompts and pathways it is difficult to know how to respond in anything but a piecemeal fashion. So ... I found your reference to Maslow’s reification of actualization above being interesting. To my mind there is something not quite right about separating aspects of the human psychology from human being because, in the end, everything is a movement toward or away from presence to being. It in not an exaggeration to say we think all the while about how we may experience what is. All striving is to that end and, if we’re lucky, does in fact end in the realisation that we are already there. We always were. So, a list like this:
... begs questions. But I won’t ask them right now because it is too late at night for such matters. I just didn’t want to let your introductory post go by without at least some thoughtful response. I’ll be back tomorrow. 3
Posted by Thorn on Thu, 06 Dec 2012 02:02 | # “…If…if…We didn’t love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation…. We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.” – A.I. Solzhenitsyn 4
Posted by daniels. on Thu, 06 Dec 2012 06:27 | # Thanks for the responses, men - sorry that the post was long. I realize that shorter ones are more appealing to read and hence, more likely to elicit comments. Next time. But for this one, I am not bothered that there were not many.
Had you been playing hard, I might have expected you to want to all but replace the notion of Selfhood with one of grounded communities. And you might be largely right to propose that. Certainly, it is a valid option. Although community might be best to add as a fleshing out of the social; while updating Selfhood (with its static and monadic sound) with the less rigid notion of “autobiography.”
So, a list like this: Being, Selfhood, Actualization and Socialization ... begs questions. It is suggested that only the social is reality, as its negotiation will determine meaningful and, in the end, factual schemes. While factual being, carefully articulated, should make for a statement that only the crazy or dishonest would deny (and is therefore an eminently worthwhile pursuit), the social will answer questions, in the end. The list is proposed for its seductiveness, importance to westerners and for the expectation that it will provoke criticism- that’s partly the idea. I think we can all agree that Being is important. I find it interesting that it may be stigmatized and even prohibited for White men - perhaps that stigma is part of why it has become such a philosophical muse - i.e., with good reason. There are factual grounds of being that only the most disingenuous social constructionist could ignore. And there will be guiding lights of our DNA - reliable expressions of authentic group and individual patterns - they will be verifiable. But how Being counts, that is a social negotiation that we can either allow to be inflicted upon us or, we can ride the tiger, as I propose we do: That our being counts as warranted and sacred (even as White men!), innocent until proven guilty, on the grounds of our 41,000 years of native European evolution. 5
Posted by daniels. on Thu, 06 Dec 2012 07:16 | # I would also expect that if it is part of the objective to bring more women into the fold - as I proposed to do with this re-evaluation - that more talk of community, relationships and family would be in order to flesh out the social with our particular, germane and ameliorative qualities as Whites, to appeal to women. In fact, what Carol Gilligan maintained as the distinguishing characteristic of “female morality” as opposed to “male morality”, was that female morality was based on Care and Relationships, whereas she saw male morality more based on principles and justice. Now, she has been criticized and rightfully so, for this neo-traditional and near teleological separation of male and female morality. However, it would be wrong to ignore what she is saying about some distinguishing characteristics between the genders, which are probably factual enough: that women tend to care about relationships. Men tend a bit more toward separatism - they are more afraid than women of being brought together with people. Women tend to be markedly different from men in that they are afraid of separation and isolated individuals. Even fairly risky behavior done in cooperation might not scare them. 6
Posted by daniels. on Thu, 06 Dec 2012 08:57 | # Because of these incommensurate gender agendas the grounds to breed contempt between the genders and further rupture classificatory balance in relationship by the culture of critique was ripe.
7
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 07 Dec 2012 00:33 | # Daniel, This is the first of two quick enquiries which occur to me. On Maslow’s ordering of his hierarchy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Maslow’s_Hierarchy_of_Needs.svg ... there is surely some doubt that the order actually concurs with the reality of Mind, and therefore that its utility exists for our thought. Obviously, the values by which the order has been derived are those of common or garden liberal individualism. Any doubt about this can easily be disposed of by asking where in the hierarchy the deepest human need - that of the love and care of the child - appears. There is that word “family”, which hardly constitutes an adequate acknowledgement of parenthood. One is left with the feeling that the “individual’s” notionalism is regnant once again, and we are being presented with a travesty as human fact. Indeed, if we impose the Salterian analysis upon Maslow’s categories, the order is practically reversed. So are we liberals or Salterians? 8
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 07 Dec 2012 01:21 | # On the question of being and the social, I would like to restate a real and very obvious fact, which is that the content of the social, as an a priori field into which we are thrown, is made of the inter-action of human personalities. The personality takes its form from the negotiation of the constant rain of temporalising life influences, which impact upon us from birth to death, with what is of nature in us. This negotiated “something” is then thrown into the world as a passive actor characterised by absence, mechanicity and suggestibility. This is the human condition, and it is a hopeless task to speak of personality as any kind of vehicle for being. It is the polar opposite, a state of false witness to being. Being cannot be known to personality. Being can only be (re)discovered under certain conditions in which the withdrawal of personality might occur, and presence might arise. No discussion of being that does not take this into account can be useful. Yet taking this into account brings us up against being’s non-negotiable elusiveness and discreteness. We can, of course, speak fully of Nature in the European mind, of the action of our sociobiology, of what belongs to us and is not acquired from without. But we cannot profitably drag being as such into our political adumbrations. The very limit, intellectually, has been the discussion of authenticity which has become important in Western thought since Heidegger. Nonetheless, intellectual calculations about it will not do. Another kind of negotiation is required, and this is wholly and only experiential. We can talk about the possibility of experience, about its accessibility or lack thereof. But we cannot get any nearer to it without entering upon it. 9
Posted by daniels on Fri, 07 Dec 2012 06:51 | # ... Daniel, This is the first of two quick enquiries which occur to me. On Maslow’s ordering of his hierarchy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Maslow’s_Hierarchy_of_Needs.svg ... there is surely some doubt that the order actually concurs with the reality of Mind, and therefore that its utility exists for our thought. Obviously, the values by which the order has been derived are those of common or garden liberal individualism. Yes, but being derived liberalism, it can and has been used to perpetuate political agendas - notably, in the case of The Feminine Mystique, which is probably the single most influential feminist text (either that, or de Beauvoir). Moreover, the human potential movement culminating in actualization ties into liberal American politics, the idolizing of celebrity, sports - many things easily exploited by our political enemies; and adopted by the naive; that which perpetuates the rupturing of White classification, non-accountability and runaway effect. Though we may dismiss it readily, in intellectual terms, part of the problem is that this human potential narrative does have appeal and it does have some truth to it. However.. Any doubt about this can easily be disposed of by asking where in the hierarchy the deepest human need - that of the love and care of the child - appears. There is that word “family”, which hardly constitutes an adequate acknowledgement of parenthood. Exactly, Maslow pays lip service to the social - he even speaks of “democratic character” as being a part of Self Actualization but how he addresses the social only speaks to his contrivance, an affectation political convenience.
Good point. Indeed, if we impose the Salterian analysis upon Maslow’s categories, the order is practically reversed. So are we liberals or Salterians? Salterians; with added facility.
I can agree with that. It is like that but, where you say.. But we cannot profitably drag being as such into our political adumbrations. I think we might draw Being as a White Box - a White box admits that it does not know the actual form or trajectory of that within. I would say that we must speak of Being, as it corresponds with the ordinary apprehension not only of being left alone to live unfettered, but also of organicism and survival - these are our central political concerns. To rather make being so ultra mysterious might be partly due to its having been denied men - their not being granted Being and its being stigmatized for them (you lazy, cowardly bastard!, go and die for that which you cannot even understand!), that they have made it a holy grail of sublime majesty in order to evade that stigma. It has been taboo for men. Nevertheless, it can be pondered toward its sublime form and function - to the point where it is a mystery beyond words.
Limits, or delimitation of authenticity denote a calibration which might indeed, be served by white-boxing. which has become important in Western thought since Heidegger. Nonetheless, intellectual calculations about it will not do. When you say calculations, I take it to mean that you mean feedback of the constituents of Being, which I suspect would be a non-trivial point. When you talk about “possibility” here, I see the calibration of the white box, or heuristic proposition that Being is significant. To say that it only matters in experience suggests to me what is not Being; as being would be pre experiential. I felt that Heidegger and some of the others, maybe Hegel too, might be blending Being and Selfhood (Autobiography) - the latter of which, would be experiential, practical and necessary; that’s why I ventured to bring it into the equation. Now, when we talk about Dasein, or there being, I think we are talking about a somewhat different creature. This is not characterized strictly by elusiveness and withdrawal but by a recognition of consciousness of world and self only in relation to surroundings and others. It is also a non-trivial point and one by which Heidegger sought (effectively - it is one of his better ideas. “mitDasein” - there-Being amidst the class, better still) to undo the Cartesian notion of self.
That acknowledgment of the health and necessity of periodic and intermittent reconstruction is a very different form and function than that of Maslow’s hierarchy.
10
Posted by Thorn on Fri, 07 Dec 2012 23:41 | # Daniels, Here’s an article I ran across today. It is written by one of the most preeminent contemporary feminist thinkers. I was thinking you (or GW or Dr. L, et al.) might be interested in unpacking it and dissecting her perceptions? It seems to me she makes some good points.
11
Posted by daniels. on Sat, 08 Dec 2012 09:21 | # While Camile Paglia has been critical of feminists and liberals (I think she got her start by railing against Susan Sontag), talks about the importance of the classics, I have not found her to be interesting or significant - perhaps only somewhat as a failed post modernist. It was strange of Counter Currents to endorse her. Why would they do that? Just because she is a lesbian and pays lip-service to some things from a Eurocentric perspective? She speaks with a forked tongue, paying false homage to tradition in order to advance liberalism: “Most lesbians are really bisexual, because the urge to have children is too strong.” Regarding affirmative action, “two wrongs don’t make a right; we need good, qualified Black men in the professions.” She encouraged women to take note that White men had sympathy for Mike Tyson’s plight (society made for his suffering), as if that was good that they were. I recall a picture of her arm and arm with two Blacks; it went along with an interview, in which she described them as her body guards whom she took everywhere for symbolic reasons. 12
Posted by Thorn on Sat, 08 Dec 2012 16:13 | #
Symbolic of what? The displacement of white men as white womens’ protectors? Is she saying black men are going to “liberate” white women from the alleged “evil” white male oppressors? I find it hard to beleive she’s that ignorant. That would be the epitome of ignorance! But, afterall, she is a white lesbian feminist activist. Hence she has allot of issues/inner-conflicts so anything is possible, I suppose.
Anyway, I see El Rushbo has weighed in on Paglia’s article. Here’s his take (Paglia in italics):
I think Hollywood and feminism reinforce each other. They work hand-in-hand. 13
Posted by daniels. on Sat, 08 Dec 2012 17:00 | # /. As I’ve said, she has little of importance to say. It is not more brute masculinity that we need to unleash, so that we can emulate Negroes - whose masculinity will not be mitigated by PC (not even in their “women”, for that matter). “Suppressed masculinity” is a quaint and naive wish for a return to primitive foundations: it is the stuff mudsharks are made of. In fact, it might be both easier and more productive to find a way to encourage White women to act with more feminine care. Being has been a target of Neo Traditionalist strands of feminist critique - an angle where Paglia poses with her characterization of “slacker White males.” On the other hand, achievement makes White men a target for the culture of critique; with the allegation of sheer, White male privilege, which feminism has also participated in heavily. Hence, achievement only proves the critique and justifies White men being brought down in any cruel fashion. What feminism and the culture of critique has thwarted in young men is Being and Actualization - viz., the motive to achievement. This point seemed to resonate with uKn_Leo, where he added the comment: “There can be no pride. There can be no hope for far too many. When even relative success marks you out as a target for the cash vacuuming system. What is the point?” 14
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 21 Dec 2012 18:06 | # This full text was supposed to go as a comment on this thread http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/suzy-favor-hamilton-136952
Favor Hamilton described the escort business as “exciting,” an illicit midlife diversion from her routine existence, one in which she operates a successful Madison, Wisconsin real estate brokerage with her husband, delivers motivational speeches, and does promotional work for various businesses and groups, including Disney’s running series and Wisconsin’s Potato & Vegetable Growers Association. Favor Hamilton told of suffering postpartum depression after her child’s 2005 birth and how she had been prescribed the antidepressant Zoloft, which has allowed her to “feel better than I’ve ever felt.” Additionally, she told reporter Gary D’Amato how her brother Dan committed suicide in 1999, a year before she ran for the gold medal in the 1500-meter final at Sydney’s Olympic Stadium. She led that race with 200 meters to go, but when other competitors began to pass her, Favor Hamilton recalled, she intentionally tumbled to the track, ashamed that she could not medal in honor of her late sibling. Sitting on an outdoor bench off the Las Vegas Strip earlier this month, Favor Hamilton referenced her athletic career when a reporter asked why she thought her identity could remain cloaked—especially since she spoke openly with certain johns about her real name, running career, and business pursuits. Favor Hamilton answered that as a world-class athlete she was conditioned to believe she was invincible, and that doubts and concerns were counterproductive thoughts. During a subsequent conversation she brought up Tiger Woods’s tumultuous fall, saying that, “I mean, he’s the biggest athlete ever. He obviously thought he could never get caught.” 15
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 08 Jan 2013 06:21 | #
“Gallup: 2012 election had the largest gender gap in recorded history.”
16
Posted by Suburban_elk on Tue, 08 Jan 2013 13:55 | # Maslow’s hierarchy is suspect; i had not heard of its history. Self-actualization as the pinnacle of striving is opposed to being social. Self-actualization also though is very suspect in itself; really what is there to become. To propose that one strive beyond some basic things to become something else? I tried to read Symbols of Transformation, but put it down and concluded that such intellectualizing was too obscure: the point was simple enough: upon transformation, one’s own personality is simply a prism that does not distort. I recall that the blog host here does not lend credence to Jung’s collective archetypes, and i would argue that, but that is something else. Jung is a good writer on the stages of life. Back on topic, self-actualization did become a distraction, a frivolous endeavor encouraged by hippies in the park, finding their bliss. Another example of dreadful unseriousness, or frightful lack of character. Jesting aside, … the energy spent on that thing, whatever it is, is or was misdirected, (please know, i am only talking about this on an impersonal macro level; my whole stake is entirely disinterested), and may be making more of it than it is: just another example of western man standing around wondering what to do. Re-evaluating requirements for standing in the community, is good. That topic is sensitive and who wants to bring it up. In suburban America and probably most of the post modern industrial world, the community is stretched pretty thin. Any effective action has to be collective, and unless people are working together, in an actual place, forget it. The environment we are evolving in, at the moment is isolated, as in atomized (do not like that word). Maslow’s hierarchy is part of that environment, and that pyramid needs to be turned over, emptied out, and let the elements be realigned, yes. The four components listed were obscure to me; only socialization makes sense. Self-actualization i have addressed. I do not understand the distinction between being and selfhood, or how these things are opposed to actualization. I might conceive of it as: Being as “meandering”, selfhood as ritual, actualization as growth. Socialization allows for those things but does not constrain or train for them, it cannot anyways. Socialization as entirely a practical measure of results or achievements in a competitive struggle; that is no difference than what it is now, but the struggle is not on a racial basis. 17
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 08 Jan 2013 14:15 | # /.
I had set it into a history, that is why you’d not heard of it: it exists there, salient for a couple of reasons, if you’d read, that it was taken as central by Betty Friedan, the most prominent exponent of second wave feminism. Moreover, it is emblematic of an American ideal of achievement. I am saying precisely that it has been opposed to being social. Finally, I am saying that ordinary things are important. For goodness sake, you are just about paraphrasing the critical points I am making and then saying it is what I should say. Your critique thus far, makes no sense. Ok. let me read on.. 18
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 08 Jan 2013 14:54 | # I tried to read Symbols of Transformation, but put it down and concluded that such intellectualizing was too obscure: the point was simple enough: upon transformation, one’s own personality is simply a prism that does not distort. Well, I haven’t read that one and am not talking about any rigid notion of transformation. I don’t agree the concept of self is necessarily that simple. I recall that the blog host here does not lend credence to Jung’s collective archetypes, I don’t either. and i would argue that, but that is something else. Jung is a good writer on the stages of life. “the” stages of life is one story that one might tell. Jung has some good ideas, but I do not take his organization of the self very seriously. Back on topic, self-actualization did become a distraction, a frivolous endeavor encouraged by hippies Here we go with criticizing the hippies again! as if they were the ones who were even big on Maslow! it was the feminists!...Maslow was Jewish, it was the Tony Robbins types, the traditional jock types, etc. who would get into self actualization.
In the park finding bliss would be a search for Being....... It would have become ill advisedly mixed up with drugs and eastern mysticism, but Maslow’s actualization was not really the aim.
My god, little could be more serious than protesting Viet Nam and asserting your right to exist despite the draft.
Maybe you didn’t see it there, and I don’t expect you to…am not presenting myself as guru, but I address this in discussing “selfhood and being”
Well, taking and achieving consensus is a form of being in one place. The environment we are evolving in, at the moment is isolated, as in atomized (do not like that word). Maslow’s hierarchy is part of that environment, and that pyramid needs to be turned over, emptied out, and let the elements be realigned, yes. ok… The four components listed were obscure to me; only socialization makes sense. Self-actualization i have addressed. I do not understand the distinction between being and selfhood, And I said, socialization is the only indispensable of the four - the other three are heuristics, important to westerners nevertheless; that’s why I use them. Being is somewhat more passive, organacism of our pre-existent biological structures. It is a part of our inherited corporeality. Selfhood is how we animate ourselves with autobiography. I try to cast it in ordinary terms of settingout rules and reconstructing routines so that we may establish or accountability, agency and warrant. or how these things are opposed to actualization. Actualization is going to be taken as word for achieving something particularly important or doing something especially well. My effort here is to correlate that more with socialization, in particular as it serves “White” (native European) interests.
As I have said, meandering is characteristic of Being’s organicism.
Your fairly in alignment there too, in that it is about reconstruction, but it may be getting fairly close to being - however the boundaries are not discreet and I do not want to be too literal minded. actualization as growth. It would be good to keep in mind that it requires growth, doesn’t happen by magic, but I have been using it here as the end product of growth - achievement. Whereas selfhood would be more like the learning, practice and growth necessary for those achievements. Socialization allows for those things but does not constrain or train for them, No socialization will constrain these things. Selfhood would be training in particular disciplines and socialization would be a making sure that the social realm is not harmed by the individual, but rather that the individual and social are served symbiotically. it cannot anyways. It does not try to always - it does not aim for actualization, it simply does not interfere with it when it is benign and beneficial. If you look around you will see a great deal of cooperation. Probably more than competition; and there should be even more still in regard of socialization.
The struggle has been knocked off of a racial basis by Jewish propaganda and liberal/enlightenment naiivete, of which the human potential notion actualization is a part. Jews do organize themsleves as a racial group; and they attempt to prevent Whites from organizing themselves as such. However, White flight from Black on White crime and other indicators that Whites do struggle for their racial survival on a natural basis. That they will struggle even more so when they realize more consciously that their struggle for their race is entirely valid. However, to date many have been brainwashed: http://www.vdare.com/articles/white-ethnocentrism-can-americans-really-be-brainwashed That is why we need a new narrative, one serving our interests
19
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 08 Jan 2013 15:02 | # Same post but some minor corrections
Well, I haven’t read that one and am not talking about any rigid notion of transformation. I don’t agree the concept of self is necessarily that simple. I recall that the blog host here does not lend credence to Jung’s collective archetypes, I don’t either. “the” stages of life is one story that one might tell. Jung has some good ideas, but I do not take his organization of the self very seriously. Here we go with criticizing the hippies again! as if they were the ones who were even big on Maslow! it was the feminists!...Maslow was Jewish, it was the Tony Robbins types, the traditional jock types, etc. who would get into self actualization.
In the park finding bliss would be a search for Being….... It would have become ill advisedly mixed up with drugs and eastern mysticism, but Maslow’s actualization was not really the aim. Another example of dreadful unseriousness, or frightful lack of character. My god, little could be more serious than protesting Viet Nam and asserting your right to exist despite the draft.
Re-evaluating requirements for standing in the community, is good. That topic is sensitive and who wants to bring it up. In suburban America and probably most of the post modern industrial world, the community is stretched pretty thin. Any effective action has to be collective, and unless people are working together, in an actual place, forget it. Well, taking and achieving consensus is a form of being in one place. ok… Being is somewhat more passive, organacism of our pre-existent biological structures. It is a part of our inherited corporeality. Selfhood is how we animate ourselves with autobiography. I try to cast it in ordinary terms of setting out rules and reconstructing routines so that we may establish or accountability, agency and warrant. or how these things are opposed to actualization. Actualization is going to be taken as word for achieving something particularly important or doing something especially well. My effort here is to correlate that more with socialization, in particular as it serves “White” (native European) interests.
As I have said, meandering is characteristic of Being’s organicism.
You’re fairly in alignment there too, in that it is about reconstruction, but it may be getting fairly close to being - however the boundaries are not discreet and I do not want to be too literal minded. actualization as growth. It would be good to keep in mind that it requires growth, doesn’t happen by magic, but I have been using it here as the end product of growth - achievement. Whereas selfhood would be more like the learning, practice and growth necessary for those achievements. That is a part of making the ordinary more important - of sacralizing it do an extent, yes, perhaps ritualizing it is a good word Socialization allows for those things but does not constrain or train for them, No socialization will constrain these things. Selfhood would be training in particular disciplines and socialization would be a making sure that the social realm is not harmed by the individual, but rather that the individual and social are served symbiotically. It does not try to always - it does not aim for actualization, it simply does not interfere with it when it is benign and beneficial. Socialization as entirely a practical measure of results or achievements in a competitive struggle; If you look around you will see a great deal of cooperation. Probably more than competition; and there should be even more still in regard of socialization.
The struggle has been knocked off of a racial basis by Jewish propaganda and liberal/enlightenment naiivete, of which the human potential notion actualization is a part. Jews do organize themsleves as a racial group; and they attempt to prevent Whites from organizing themselves as such. However, White flight from Black on White crime and other indicators show that Whites do struggle for their racial survival on a natural basis. That they will struggle even more so when they realize more consciously that their struggle for their race is entirely valid. However, to date many have been brainwashed: http://www.vdare.com/articles/white-ethnocentrism-can-americans-really-be-brainwashed That is why we need a new narrative, one serving our interests Post a comment:
Next entry: The nature of the beast
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) |
Posted by Graham_Lister on Wed, 05 Dec 2012 22:38 | #
Hi Danny
Some very complex and multifaceted issues that you bring up. I can’t formulate a full response to them right now but I’ll try to find some time to put my thinking cap on. But I can’t help thinking that pivotal to the problems – very serious problems – of liberal modernity is, at least in the realm of serious ideas, the victory of ‘hard’ reductionism, methodological individualism and universalism and hence the implicit ‘flat ontologies’ of such – or at least the entirely misappropriate use of such background assumptions as applied to our political, cultural, economic and social being.
Of course the truth is that trajectory of liberal modernity is the product of a series of overlapping and interlocking phenomena which in combination have resulted in our unsustainable course. There is no simple, or simple-minded ‘catch-all’ one word or one concept answer but certainly crucial to the matters at hand have been the taking of partially true concepts and the expansion of those into ‘complete’ all-encompassing truths – a profound and very deep category error in modern Western thought. The roots of our collective mistakes run very deep in my view.
And I also think the difference between optima and maxima is certainly a pivotal and massively important distinction both culturally and economically. We live in an age of maximal appetites understood and acted upon as constituting the cardinal element at the core of the process of individualisation and being in the world. European man really is in Dr. Faustus territory.
Finally I’d suggest we are in the condition of ‘post-modernity’ – attempts to revive the past in the form of strongly ‘metaphysically objectivist’ doctrines - as the foundational basis of a social order are probably doomed to failure. There is no going back to the past as the past (so to speak). The idea that European societies could return to be in the same ‘imaginative space’ in which Christianity was unquestionably thought to be true and intellectually or politically unchallengeable is a very silly notion. Instead we should embrace the useful aspects of post-modernity and shape them to our own ideological ends. As a sociological and cultural insight – rather than a philosophical or theological one – Nietzsche was correct in proclaiming that “God is dead”.
The key is to reconcile ontological objectivity with epistemic or phenomenological relativism – that is to ground political theory in both the objective and subjective nature of the world and human experience within it.
I know many think ‘ontology talk’ and the like is irrelevant guff. I don’t. Attempting to get to grips with the most fundamental ideas and concepts that have shaped the modern sensibility across all modalities – social, cultural, economic, politics, jurisprudence and so on is of vital importance. And such efforts are far more important and worthwhile than the easy clichés served up in all of the J-lizard chatter in the world.
But I’m going off-topic so I will leave it there!