The Dark Side of The Human Potential Movement: Transforming Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs to Map White Social Systemic Reconstruction as opposed to Aberration and Runaway.

The Dark Side of Human Potential Movement: Transforming Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs to Map White Social Systemic Reconstruction as opposed to Aberration and Social Systemic Runaway.

Part one The Dark Side of Self Actualization, Principium Individuationus and incommensurate Gender Agendas

Podcast 1: Hippies and Feminists, expressing a diachronic of incommensurate gender agendas of self actualization.

Maslow’s Hierarchy of Motives as a model of the American dream, exacerbating its propensity to disregard and rupture social classificatory bounds, including rupture of national borders through a YKW weaponized notion of civil individual rights. 
 
This instigates modernity’s disordering effect against erstwhile social systemic homeostasis and therefore implicates its runaway, as gender lines become the predominant default classificatory organization; with White males disempowered by PC and females pandered-to from all directions, former bounds are continually ruptured: The one-up position of the female re-emerging with increased significance in the disorder, and pandered-to from all directions, she is more confirmed, thus secure, confident and articulate, but poignantly in weaponization by the YKW - the short term benefits of her one up gate-keeping position and its maintenance reinforced in its puerile inclination to incite arbitrary genetic competition - her mature social classificatory identification and its benefits ruptured in favor of her “nature”, i.e., her most base and racial anarchic form - which disrupts the more protracted and sublimating means of White individuation and socialization.

Thesis: Maslow’s Hierarchy has not only exacerbated flaws in the sheer teleological model of Aristotle’s notion of self actualization upon which it is based; but occupies a pivotal model of American and therefore White “Western” self maximizing individualism to the expense of White social group homeostasis.

The question then becomes a matter of re-tooling the parameters and constituents of need and incentivization to where more accurate topoi are provided - i.e., of sustainable social system parameters, the maintenance of which is recognized as integral to the motivational scheme, and in fact necessary to facilitate and retain the best and most important incentives of “self actualization” - the constituents of which are entirely natural and appealing to White people of both genders; and potentially manageable in fairness with proper arrangement of topoi. 

Based on Aristotle, Self Actualization isn’t merely the “garden style pop cultural notion”, it is very much in our western tradition and ways; it needs a more authentic re-tooling from Maslow’ - certainly -  but even from the teleological, indvidualistically formal tradition that spawned the Cartesian separation which has left us susceptible to so many social problems.

Coming into consciousness in the 60’s as I did, I felt the discrepancies between the Feminist agenda and the Hippie agenda, which unfolded from my rudimentary charting as I followed Heidegger’s hermeneutic advice to find one’s existential perspective in historical / autobiographical contexting - the crisis of feminism of the 70’s having buried the more fundamental agenda of the hippies for male Being,, buried after concessions for the Vietnam war draft were no longer necessary, but a crisis which remained nevertheless, masked… a crisis that remains, which only goes to show how difficult its going to be to anchor White social systemic homeostasis in an intrinsic valuation of White male being - flying in the face of the charmed loop of didactic incitement to traditional male stereotype, being vulnerable as a concept as it would stand-up to manipulation and machination of our enemies; and crass feminism; being hard to articulate as an organic motive in its subtlety - and yet, if you think not wanting to be drafted to go and die in Vietnam isn’t an organic motivation, but some kind of top down directive strictly from the Jewish SDS or that hippies were the expression of some kind of conspiracy theory of the military industrial complex to turn people off to the anti war movement, you’re nuts.

But once the Vietnam war was over, antagonism to White male being was moving into high gear, not only from feminists - but poignantly so: what could be more painful than to be antagonized and hated by people you are born to love.

Thus, coming back to my crisis which instigated my taking Heidegger’s advice for hermeneutics, whereupon I set my autobiography in historical perspective and diachronic:

Once the Vietnam war was over, antagonism to White male being was moving into high gear..  not only from feminists, but poignantly - what could be more painful than to be antagonized and hated by the people you are born to love.

The feminist antagonism to White men was pervasive, spreading to even the women in my personal life; I had little buffer - experiencing it acutely through my mom, a susceptible and ready consumer of the misandry of the times, my sister’s intense and shrill feminism expressing her consumption of the literature, Simone de Beauvoir, Helen Gurley Brown and Betty Friedan culminating with self actualization in her career as a divorce attorney; but what really slayed-me was the “liberated mind” of my first serious girlfriend, in 1984 - the keen logical capacity, the completely secure lack of empathy that taking for granted her basic needs supplied her with, infusing a vicious willingness to immense cruelty and destruction without account.

“You bore me!” She once screamed. Despite all the for real challenges before me and on my mind: As if I were a jester, of no greater intrinsic worth than to entertain the queen. Off with my head otherwise.

The force of hatred, vanity and conceit in her requirement was total shock.

My sister was not a one-off.  This lack of empathy was out there in force among women. I was in deep crisis in terms of esteem, identity and security - I was gathering, so was our race….

The dam of middle class women had not broken yet, still didn’t see them with blacks, but ominous possibility and horrible augury was a clear implication in the rule structure, threatening, looming for over a decade already.

In that year, 1984, Sharon imparted an experience to me, “This black kid said to me, ‘hey, you got a girlfriend?’ I was sewing and cut my finger in that moment.  I thought it was just the funniest thing. I told him that I’m too old for you.”

In a podcast subsequent to part 3, I’ll discuss the compound intersecting of two classifications impossible to ignore despite Lockeatine empiricism’s modernist rule structure, specifically its prohibition of social classification in favor of individual rights, and the YKW weaponization of that in anti-racism - there are two social classifications that emerge despite these prohibitions, with particular hegemony absent others, the high contrast tropism and biopower behind them impossible to ignore - gender, viz. women and blacks.

Podcast 2: Hippies, a non-trivial movement for White Male Being/Midtdasein; buried for its incommensurability with the American story of human potential; and its inconvenience to the Feminist Agenda, crassly set forth as individual achievement in symmetrical opposition to men; atop the hierarchy of self actualization, at the expense of social relationships and against Aristotle’s optima.

Taking Heidegger’s advice that authentic identification calls for a hermeneutic placing of oneself in the perspective of a historical/autobiographical time-line…  ..I observed that the Hippie agenda had not been understood for its essence (with only vague and largely obfuscated clues - such as from the rock opera, “Hair”) that it was a protest movement for a right below rights, an assimilation of intrinsic valuation, specifically for White male Being (dasaein) amidst his people (Midtdasein).   
                                                         
I observed further that by the end of the Vietnam War, popular impetus behind this movement was gone. The absurd cruelty of the Vietnam War draft evidently made some popular concession necessary, but by war’s end, perceived need by the powers the be for cultural concession to White male being was gone.

In the American culture of the times, the human potential movement occupied a central place, and I intuitively saw disparate gender agendas within the most popular model of human potential - Maslow’s Hierarchy of needs - wherein hippie males were looking to secure the more basic needs on the hierarchy.

    I was appalled by Feminist complaints, so obnoxiously vain - such “higher grumbles” as compared to the complaints, the “low grumbles” of males - markedly, not wanting to be considered so intrinsically worthless as to be expendable to a draft to die in Vietnam.

    Yet, I had not realized just how relevant Maslow’s Hierarchy was as a paradigm until I belatedly read Betty Friedan’s “The Feminist Mystique” (1963) and discovered that in fact, she was a student of Maslow, and considered women’s access to the “self actualization” atop Maslow’s hierarchy of motives and unburdening of their “higher grumbles’’ for those farther reaches as necessary to their liberation.

And upon reading Simone de Beauvoir’s “The Second Sex” (1948) I learned where Friedan gained her point of departure, page 672: “This utility of the housekeeper’s heaven is the reason why she (speaking of traditional women) adopts the Aristotelian morality of the golden mean, that is, of mediocrity.”  With that, Friedan was contributing to the vast instigation of a crassly individualistic, symmetrical competitiveness and toxically maximizing notion of “self actualization” as the ultimate goal; that abrogation of judgment contributed significantly to the breakdown of fairness and balance in gender relations and to social systemic runaway.

      Like Friedan, de Beauvoir was not giving sufficient respect to Aristotle, his concept of human nature in praxis, its necessarily delimited basis of human relationships in the optimal, not maximzing concerns of biology and agency. Neither were paying anything like sufficient regard to grievances from the male perspective - de Beauvoir in the wake of World War II and Friedan, as Vietnam was underway - the “low grumbles” of males on Maslow’s framework, that they should not, for example, be expendable in battles where there was no clear and imminent danger to their folk.

De Beuvoir tacitly and Friedan more explicitly, held a view toward the disproportionate representation of men in power as primarily a result of (Maslowian) differentiation of fulfillment of more basic needs and not, as is always partly and sometimes more-so the case, an expression of (Nietzschean/Freudian) sublimation and overcompensation for deprivation and even privation of more basic needs.

Feminists punishing men who’d achieved “oppressive advantage and undue privilege” when in fact they may have achieved despite great deprivation would undoubtedly be the source of much misogyny and male aberration. Similarly, traditional women unreasonably upholding traditional expectations despite changing circumstances of modernity which reflexively effected even less assurance and provision to basic male security or respect for achievement if realized would source much misogyny and aberration.

Probably because an agenda of basic organic, communal and ordinary needs did not correspond with the American dream of great individual opportunity, and in part for the difficulty to articulate a concern for being, which is by definition organic, not preoccupied with fantastic analysis; but mostly because it did not suit the needs of the YKW, or the fortunate who were disposed to sell out in right wing interests, nor for Feminist or Traditional women, and blackmailed by the also incommensturate agenda of black civil rights and black power, the agenda of male needs was swept aside and under the rug once the Vietnam war was over and its need and the violation of its need, was no longer so obvious.

The conflict of these incommensurate gender agendas, the damage that this conflict and Maslow’s notion of Self Actualization does to social systemic balance and homeostasis and the well being of White men and women, their relations remains to be fixed through a transformation of Maslow’s Hierarchy of needs.

Podcast 3: Transforming Maslow’s hierarchy to a set of topoi compelling for White gender differentiation and individuation while reconstructing its necessary context in ongoing correction for optimal social systemic of our group accountability - heretofore ruptured significantly by over-emphasized individual quest of self actualization; a naivete exploited by antagonists to our would-be group homeostasis.

Reconfiguring Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs from Toxic Maximization of Principium Individuationus to Fair and Optimal Negotiation of Individuation and Gender Differentiation within homeostasis of Social Systemic Delimitation. As the lineal maximizing amd overly individualistic model that is Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs is seen to channel Aberration and Social Systemic Runaway, its reconfiguration is hypothesized with Topoi of Optimal Social Systemic Delimitation Providing for Circulating Negotiation and Management of Traditional / Modern Gender Differentiation and Individuation.

Light green text on sides illustrates the directions: On left side: of Traditional Women, having readier fulfillment of basic and ordinary Needs protected for sake of practicality, exercise contextual force thereover; while Traditional Men have been required to make more sacrifices of lower levels and demonstrate merit where not reserved prerogative to exercise Implicative Force of Higher Needs.

On right side in light green: Modernist Women, generally having basic needs satisfied, have “Higher Grumbles”, leading them to Overcompensate or Reverse Traditional Gender Roles in order to Differentiate and Actualize their Individuation. While Modernist Men, whose Traditional “Low Grumbles” for deprivation on basic and ordinary Needs is increased with disorder of Modernity, tend to Overcompensate or Reverse Traditional Gender Roles to Differentiate and Actualize Individuation.

I anticipate that one difficulty that I’ll have with reception of this proposal is that my audience to date has tended to be rather literal minded, antagonistic and stand-offish; not appreciating the necessary and even beneficial aspects of slight ambiguity in terms and topoi.

For example, they might not see that female and male self actualization are not necessarily conflictual - in fact, shouldn’t be. They my not appreciate the fact that some people going for a more traditional, teleological notion of self actualization and some with a more modern notion of self actualization, as a purveyor of innovation, can also be accommodated within the more flexible scheme on offer.

People may not appreciate that this is models the possibility of circularity, therefore men are not being precluded from self actualization if they are afforded being - in fact, it is anticipated that their actualization will be less rigid and better supplied.

Afforded this flexibility, women will not permanently reject mother and wife roles.

Rather both genders will tend to graduate more toward the role of their inherent evolution, without an unnatural teleoligizging or Cartesian separation of their true, organic, empirical state and its necessary possibilities for counterbalancing correction.

Nor is it a matter of disregarding organic processes in favor of imposing rigid categories and quotas. On the contrary the quaternary system is deliberately a topoi of an imperfectly resolved engine to encourage participation in its open ended definition and allow for this natural flow and specification, albeit for correction where it does not suit our higher, human nature.

The idea is not to promote the modernist or the traditional agenda, but to allow for organic corrective processes to afford flexibility for both, as optimal, and a more natural and satisfying process of individuation and socialization.

Managed properly, this should provide basis for a way of life natural to European peoples; at the same time it may be seen by both of our genders as a great advantage and reason to remain loyal against Abrahamic religions and races which don’t respect our right to exist.

The four proposed constituents for the transformation of Maslow’s Hierarchy to an Optimal Praxis - socialization as it were, systemic delimitation in the interest of White peoples.

1 Socialization/Midtdasein 2 Being/Dasein 3 Routine/Sacrament 4 Self Actualization - Teleological/Innovative/Heroic for the Social Group

       
Part 4: Four Constituent Topoi to the transformation of Maslow’s hierarchy, in this part Socialization and Being are discussed

The four proposed constituents for the transformation of Maslow’s Hierarchy to an Optimal Praxis - socialization as it were, systemic delimitation in the interest of White peoples,

1 Socialization/Midtdasein 2 Being/Dasein 3 Routine/Sacrament 4 Self Actualization - Teleological/Innovative/Heroic for the Social Group

In terms of negotiating more sane and optimal gender relations, it is proposed that if particular women elect to emphasize self actualization, that they should be subject to more rigorous tests on basic levels so that they do not take the fulfillment of their basic needs for granted and try* to act as liberals upon actualization into positions of power and influence - I say “try to” because certain liberal politics, such as opening the borders are simply not an option in White socialization, no matter which gender is in power (hence, why it does not ultimately necessarily matter whether it is a man or women in that position).

Conversely, of course, we are proposing that males have somewhat more relaxed access to the basic needs so that their route to self actualization is not so rigid and overcompensating, not so prone to aberration and abetment of systemic runaway.
As can be the result, for example, of ignominious bullying, as in Naven Ritual Rites of passage, which produced harsh, overcompensing males.

1. Socialization: At birth, as Rom Harre says, a “person position” enters into “the one a-priori context, molecules and persons in conversation” - practically speaking, persons in relation to one another.

Now, one does not have to take this perspective, they can say that we are born into brute facts and just determined to follow casual pathways over which people and the social world largely play no part, or a less significant part, but…

My answer to that is, if you’re not going to so much as decide with other people how these brute facts count, or in fact, you cannot do that much, can’t speak, are not around to utter the case, then what does it matter to us?

Moreover, you give up the opportunity to place the gauge you relative social group interests as a prime criteria, and with that, the accordance of broad social systemic coherence, accountability, agency and warrant.

You see, a social constructionist perspective is not only true enough, it is a remedy, a corrective habit, so to speak - to gauge, before long, our factual inquiries against our relational and relative group interests; as opposed to the Cartesian, anti-Social, Lockeatine, anti-Social group perspective that has taken our race off course of relevance to our relative group interests.

So, we make Socialization the preeminent context of self actualization, for without that what does it matter? And what does it mean to us to be socialized? At broadest parameter, it means to be accountable to uphold and reconstruct the social systemic bounds and borders of our people - in our case, speaking as ethnonationalists, our ethnonations - whether they are physical land based nations or merely rules-based nations at this point.

The most fundamental point of socialization is that one recognizes their indebtedness to their people for their survival through millennia and for their ongoing success; and as such is accountable to the borders and bounds of their relative social group as delimited from non-native, lesser related peoples; one is accountable the borders and bounds of rules-based governance - inclusion for loyalty and exclusion for violation - are upheld and reconstructed.

2.  Being/Dasein: would be seen in this hermeneutic corrective framework, corrective to the Cartesian directive which sets us off the rails in leave of our senses; being in correction, is the virtually immediate process, at any rate, a matter returned to in any instant necessary, where the social world of other people are not attending to facts acutely relevant to one’s personal being.

Being, a verb, is an ongoing organic process, meandering qualitatively and expressing our nature in burgeoning concern for full, authentic expression of our interests, but never completely above and always beholden to our most basic organic requirements - optimal balance and survival.

Dasein, or there being, is a suggestion to engage in the non-Cartesian process of our being; a non-Cartesian, hermeneutic circle which yes, includes “Of Being” on the circuit, but not only.

Dasein is an expression of Care which will find relevance in relative concern amidst the organic delimitation of one’s people - midtdasein.
     

Podcast 5: Constituent Topoi for the Transformation of Maslow’s Hierarchy: Actualization, Routine and Sacrament

3. I’m going to jump ahead to the notion of Self Actualization at this point, since the notion has been very much infused with Cartesian separation from social group relation, interdependence, interaction and with that relative accountability.

In traditional form, self actualization was more telelogical and blindered individuation to social interactive input.

In modernist form, it overvalued individual difference and innovation - not only proposing the modernist paradox, “be different so you can fit in” but in modernist rule structure - a recursively reconstrucing charmed loop of having to be “new and different” - implicating a destruction of traditional relations, inherited forms and ways, it ran roughshod over social systemic bounds and homeostasis - no wonder the notion does not help defend our people as such.
That is why we introduce to the notion of self actualization what is Heroic for the Social Group - its defense, reconstruction, fostering and advance.

Again, without some recognition, appreciation and influence on others, what good “self actualization”?

 

4.The other integral level of correction for social systemic optima would be an “in between level” of routine and sacrament.

These topoi will help steady the system and anchor it for their valuation. These levels, as all levels, i.e., along with socialization, being, and actualization are also enjoyable; but also necessary. People need and like a certain amount of routine, which allows us to take for granted what we need to cultivate tried and true practices we’ve inherited from our forebears, allowing us to gauge, steady and reconstruct our progress.

Sacrament is integral as well: Though not necessarily an every day practice, we venerate the episodic representation of time in memorial patterns which have been crucial to our survival.

A sacramental veneration of monogamy and sex are proposed to anchor the system , to assert that human possibility in praxis as a legitimate option, staving-off cynicism and helping to maintain loyalty; with the added benefit of undercutting the trump card of our Abrahamic enemies.

For we also allow for sex as celebration, among other stories, for those who so choose; provided they are accountable, specifically to the national borders and social bounds, but also respecting the option of those who elect for sacrament - for they provide one of the control variables, so to speak, on our genetic capital.

And without that option, that choice, there is no authentic being.

For it is here, with modernist scientism, its naturalistic fallacies, that our enemies or those who just don’t care have wreaked tremendous havoc to our social systemic homeostasis.

And it is demonstrated as such, why White post modernity is absolutely crucial.

Entirely inarticulate of their motive though they were, these more fundamental levels on the hierarchy of needs -socialization/midtdasein, being/dasein and routine/sacrament, were the non-trivial, organic motives of the hippie agenda.

Our enemies, hidebound traditionalists, feminists primarily concerned to maintain their exponentiated one-up position resultant of modernity’s upshot, with no interest in fairness or the human ecology of our p;profound evolution, have sought to bury these legitimate interests on the part of White men.

The attribution of intrinsic value to the being of White men is something that our enemies, or those objectivists who think they are just too cool for words, don’t want to allow for. But it is the crucial element to our survival as Whites.

And people of good will and sense recognize that the reconstruction of our social systemic bounds and homeostasis is part and parcel of their being, individuation and actualization.

With that, our socialization/midtdasein affords and is afforded by being/dasein, routine/sacrament, self actualization, teleological, innovative, or heroic to the group for both genders, and distinguishes our European people as the free, creative and sovereign people that we are.

This non-Cartesian, White post modern socialization closes the modernist loop and frees us of mere “traditions” which no longer serve in the optimal circulation of our concern and respect for the reconstruction of our system by input from sometimes incommensurate positions, which are nevertheless necessary and complementary.