Being, Selfhood, Socialization, Self Actualization in An Optimal, Hermeneutic Circle of Motives are opposed to a Fixed Hierarchy of Motives.
Being, Selfhood, Socialization, Self Actualization are proposed looked upon in the framework of an Optimal, Hermeneutic Circle of Motives – in particular as it facilitates a Post-Modernist reconstruction of the White Class and its boundaries.
This is by contrast to Abraham Maslow's fixed Hierarchy of Motives - a modernist notion, wherein individual needs being maximally completed on one level, would facilitate lineal progression to the next, while running roughshod over boundary concerns of the White Class and its qualitative, patterned interests.
"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" – Gregory Batson
This becomes a White issue by way of what is deemed worse or better – what is considered "actualized". Whites would have incommensurate criteria to other races in terms of what would represent actualization. It has bearing not only in the re-valuation of actualization for Whites, but in gaining their strength and skill through the valuing of "lower" level motives; this also establishes a motive for White class boundaries, as they are required particularly at basic levels - the issues established thus, the motive is clarified to fight and to succeed.
As I began to explore and set things within this revised, hermeneutic framework of motives, things started falling even more into place. The hierarchy/optima of motives demonstrated potentially incommensurable gender agendas as well; however, this grammar of motives provided a commensurable means for a fair negotiation of motives between White men and women.
At a critical period of time, viz., during the Viet Nam War, the motives of White Men and Women were opposed. I do not think this has ever been rectified. However, I found to my theoretical delight, since I was in the business of transforming Malsow, that Betty Friedan (1963), was not only a student of Abraham Maslow; but she was also speaking within the theoretical framework that I was critiquing - as she had set the agenda for feminist women in Maslow's hierarchy of motives, seeing women's liberation as a need and a quest for self actualization.
Despite the fact that these were "high grumbles" - Maslow called complaints of deprivation on the succeeding levels, "low and high grumbles" - the obviously "low grumbles" by contrast, of what I would come to call the White male motive, for Being, went virtually unarticulated; even prominent hippie figures such as John Lennon were clueless.
Nevertheless, with incitement to self actualization, America being the land of opportunity and all, systemic runaway and reflexive effects of aberration and destruction became evident; it is hypothesized here, at least sometimes due to a lack of appreciation for the fostering ground of being, selfhood and socialization; all the while exacerbated by the steady erosion of the White Class boundary, as it was enjoined by the Constitution, attacked by Jewish activism and transgressed by corporate interests.
As I have noted before, the matter was profoundly complicated by an increase of the one-up position of females within the disordering effects created by the prohibition of classification – she becoming more competed for, more articulate, confident and authoritative even, by means of solicitation. And Blacks, being the aggressive, presumptuous, hyper-assertive beasts that they are, were well positioned to take opportunistic advantage of this disorder.
1. Theory
"The darker side of 'self-actualization' has been little explored" – Carol Wilder Mott.I have wanted to look at motives in a different way so as to better serve the needs of Whites now, in post-modern times. I am not a pacifist. I want Whites to fight and establish their sovereignty and class boundaries so that they may flourish. I am guessing that White men, in particular, need better fostering grounds than they have been afforded when looked at in terms of something like Maslow's hierarchy; and because of the prohibition of White Class boundaries. Though I will submit an addendum on the matter of classification, the matter of class has been largely discussed already. Thus, I will focus here on transforming Maslow's hierarchy of motives into a hermeneutic, optimality of Motives, with the conviction that Heidegger would be correct, that we are best served by the process of the hermeneutic circle, tracing matters from things more close to factual then going to more speculative, broad frames of reference in the historical narrative of our White class, back to things more factual again and so on. That Aristotle was also correct on the more factual end: humans being biological creatures are dependent on optimal levels of need satisfaction. Maslow's hierarchical, individual maximization can take toxic form and have harsh reflexive effects. Finally, the new framework would provide a way in which White male and White female motives can correspond with their fair negotiation in an effort to cooperate in the construction of a class boundary and in other defenses of the race. Again, that would be important according to Aristotle, with humans caring about relationships as they do.
This brought me to where Abraham Maslow is confronted not only by Aristotle, but also by Nietzsche.
And not only where he would chide, with candor, that our lives are lived through us. That Maslow is drawing maps of maps and making interpretations of interpretations.
Maslow's theory is that when basic need categories are maximally supplied, that they allow a platform for the next level of needs until the farther reaches of actualization are achieved. This is a notion not only given to misuse, selfishness and anti-social striving, but blinds those who use it to the Nietzschean aspect of "sublimation" – that is, where achievement, in particular male achievement, has been attained through deprivation on basic levels and at times provided for in compensation – as is at least partly the case.
Thus, feminists would be criticizing men - White men - atop the hierarchy who, in many instances, had made great sacrifices, quite the opposite of having gotten there by privilege. Given the background of The Viet Nam War, criticizing males as necessarily privileged was especially perverse.
Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, suggesting that there was a necessary priority of needs among all humans: from the most basic of physiological, to safety, to love, belonging and esteem and finally to self actualization, was liable to serious mischaracterization and terrible misdirection - such as the draft into Jewish wars; when young men can be pursuing intelligent
endeavors, and more distinctly human, distinctly White ends. I am
reminded of a recruitment motto that the army once used, to "Be
All That You Can Be in The Army."
There is some truth to Maslow's Hierarchy, of course, but in social reality life does not work so neatly, so lineally, nor should it. We should be concerned, particularly in a context such as America, void of White Class boundaries, as to how Maslow's story of Actualization is a destructive model for Whites; not merely destroying time and White resources with niggerball.
We require this critical platform to reject those stories of
Actualization which are not conducive to White interests in
nations such as the U.S., governed largely by Jewish motives,
which holds up as exemplars of actualization: The Black athlete,
the Black musician, the Black Scientist, The Jewish movie star,
The Jewish billionaire, the Jew backed activist against Whites and
so on; and impositions of this slop to influence the rest of the world.
Yes, we hate people, niggers, who claim genetic superiority,
who say that they are going to rule us, who
claim the right to the women that we create, when they,
themselves, do not create women we like. And, we hate people who
impose them upon us. Jewish imposition of
Black aggression, as we have noted, opportunistically takes
advantage of the susceptibility of the more sublimating Whites,
absent class boundaries, to these stories.
So, I set about "to do it to them" – to subvert and transform their paradigm and make it conducive to White interests.
More, I believed that there is something to be said, prima facie, for a male's point of view as being one that is admiring of cooperation, beauty and caring; while women may have a taste for that which is strong, impervious, undaunted – in a society prohibiting group boundaries, and thereby favoring their perspective, that is likely to contribute to runaway effects, catastrophic to social and environmental ecology.
Thus, treating Maslow's story of Actualization as destructive to White interests, I began by critiquing the whole notion and its out of turn priority for feminists; focusing on what would be the more basic needs of Whites, especially White males, which seemed to me well characterized by: Being, Selfhood and Socialization.
It is my hypothesis that there can be no White actualization without being, selfhood and socialization. Thus, they need to be valued as much as Actualization. But neither should we, of course, block the striving for White accomplishment.
Being: Being would be a qualitative meandering in answer to one's most basic biological requirements and interests, without incitement that there is something fundamentally wrong with that, without persecution or exploitation of one's natural resources and co-evolved partners.
"Sleeping is the highest genius" – Soren Kierkegaard
I became interested in the notion of Being as an effect of experiencing the feminist hatred of the 1970's - a horrible time (for me, anyway) to be a White male adolescent. Though a critic of my piece on hippies stated that the motive of Hippies was "to be left alone", they were right, but not capturing it all - it was clear that being left alone was essential in the verb being from the onset. It was also clear that what seemed to be an affordance of being for males during the hippie epoch was over as soon as the Viet Nam War was over.
I believed that something profound had been pushed aside. And what had been pushed aside didn't seem to have high regard amongst women's motives – just the opposite. I began to look upon the 60's hippie stuff as not just a motive to be left alone, but for the male of the species to be left alone and to be – rightfully and importantly so. What indications were there that this was essential motive of the hippie epoch? Well, for one, males were expected to go to Viet Nam and die for bullshit, females were not – so, in some respects, male lives were considered to have less and little value; i.e., their fundamental need for being was being denied intrinsic value. For the duration of the war, it would seem, females felt obligated to let up on genetic incitement of males to competition – conscription being didactic. The song "My Conviction", from the rock opera, "Hair", provided one clue in this regard:
"...it is my conviction that longer hair and other flamboyant affectation of appearance are nothing more than the male's emergence from his drab camouflage into the gaudy plumage which is the birthright of his sex"
Other clues that Being was essential to the hippie thing had to do with the San Francisco "Be-In" of January 1967. The Focus on Being, to me, indicated a theme of Heidegger's discussions of Being.
Though hippies, as a group, were not especially
intellectual; their movement was concerned with radical, organic
being, after all, not sublime intellect – vulnerable as such, it
was largely mischaracterized and co-opted by Marxist Jews.
Another discussion of Being at the time came from Paul Tillich (the one who Martin Luther King plagiarized). In "The Courage To Be", he advised, "one must love them self enough to accept in them self that which is unacceptable." That sounded like Being to me.
Rollo May (Jew, sorry about that, hadn't sworn off of them so much as to stop reading them yet): "The hippie movement was about a 'right below rights."
Still another clue came from: "The Ignominious bullying of Naven Ritual Rites of Passage produced harsh, over-compensating males" – ethnographer, G. Bateson on a South Seas Island ritual.
Comparing that to boot-camp and other hazing, I began to wonder about the primitivism of rites of passage for males, and just how valid they were..
"Rather than being fulfilling, primitivism is emptying."
"The Stoic acceptance was an attempt to transubstantiate even the repugnant aspects of existence, the excremental, into the essentially divine" – Kenneth Burke
Note: Stoicism held that the universe was comprised of a cosmic whole, each part good and necessary.
That sounds like being compelled to accept, to work and die for niggers and nigger lovers, doesn't it? Like being told that eating shit is good for you.
Being would be a qualitative meandering in answer to one's most
basic biological requirements and interests, without incitement
that there is something fundamentally wrong with that, without
persecution or exploitation of one's natural resources and
co-evolved partners. Thus, in answer to the recruitment officer,
why a White man should not be compelled to serve and potentially
lose life and limb in a corporate war, to supposedly "be all he
can be", it would be because White being is first.
It is a violation of fundamental White human being, the most noble
D.N.A., to die, to be killed off for corporate interests, for Jews or a
Constitution that makes no explicit reference to the preservation
of Whites. It is rather his manly requirement to build himself
into a strong and stable warrior on behalf of the White race,
oriented and knowing his being as such.
To learn Buddism is to know yourself
To know yourself is to forget yourself
To forget yourself is to identify yourself with the law of the universe – one with the universe
To be one with the universe is to "drop" the notion that you are one with the universe
Along with the body and mind of yourself and others – Dogen
Selfhood:
"Nature and ideals are alike in that they treat the individual as the mere space through which other things pass" – Paul Tillich
Selfhood would be characterized by routine, everyday reconstructive practices of home maintenance, education and work; skills and practical disciplines. In its form it is autobiographical, hermeneutic. And, as stated previously, but relevant again here, one learns rules, sets some down for them self, and refers back to them in proof of their self-agency. Because it is in narrative, sequential form, it may be amended in various ways to negotiate contradiction and paradox. It facilitates accountability for defensive reasons and warrant for pro-active endeavor. That is to say, self is being taken into an autobiographical form; situating oneself in the context White European history.
Nevertheless, selfhood is concerned primarily for ordinary tasks, but taking a sacral, ritual attitude to the geneology of these skills and practices evolved through White history. You have to know a rule before you can break it; or transcend it. Selfhood is fundamental to Actualization, bigger, more noticeable things, as it were. However, it should be looked upon as sacred of itself; the enjoyment of relative autonomy and cultivated skills, marketable to provide for one's self and family is ultimate. Habermas makes a useful suggestion here – that unless one can see their subjective interests and aims being served in a discipline/practice, they will not learn.
Socialization:
"...an additional serious charge against the advocates and practitioners of the human potential movement is that they promote a new hedonism." – William Gorden.
As a social constructionist, socialization is the only real category of the four: being, selfhood, socialization and self actualization. There are none of the other categories without interaction and some negotiation with other people. This would include making your self a worthy spouse of a worthy White partner and a worthy parent to your children. It means not having to compete and win with every exchange but being able to let some things roll off the back, especially within the White race. Socialization in our definition does Not mean accepting the anti-racist angle, nor the imposition of non-Whites upon White men and women. Though it does mean being a tactful warrior and activist on behalf of the White race, the White class and homelands. Socialization especially means accountability to the White Class, i.e., the White Race, its 40,000 years of evolution; accountability for the re-construction of its class boundary and lands.
Self Actualization:
Lets begin with some perversions of actualization. Actualization in terms of recognition in the theater – from movies, to TV to porno – has been co-opted by Jew criteria; and, largely through Jewish promotion as well, sports and music have been promoted as necessarily participating with niggers. Where that is the case, we should not bother to recognize nor participate, as they are not conducive to our White Cultural patterns, our more sublimated, far-reaching and important realms of achievement. As Aristotle would say regarding black athletes, for example, this is not what makes people distinctly human – horses can run faster. At any rate, whatever Jews, other non-Whites and niggers do, the drug addicts Jimi Hendrix, John Coltrane, Charlie Parker and Sly Stone – no matter how compelling, whatever may be declared actualization for their part, their culture is not offering anything approaching a worthy exchange to Whites and the destruction that inevitably comes along with it. We would prefer our women to funky music, thank you very much. Although there is enough egomania among White women – perhaps instilled in large part by the prohibition of White Class boundaries and the Malowian paradigm - we should prefer that they be better educated – as there is no substitute. 14 Words. In fact, White Actualization, at this point, goes to the White man and woman who has children, managing the other three levels, making special individual contributions to the White race and being an effective warrior – RaHoWa!
Find your autobiographical actualization in the historical narrative of the White Race
The Actualized, in this historical context, would be ones who effect White borders, deportation, expulsion and riddance of impositions on White people and resources.
Again, the motives Being, Socialization, Selfhood and
Actualization would circle back amongst the other needs in
continual management of optimal balance.
Another way of characterizing this four part would be to say that Selfhood would be a matter of self assertion, as would self Actualization; while Being amongst and Socialization to the White Class would be more a matter of Self Transcendence.
– A Post Modern Turn
Maslow's theory of a hierarchy of motives culminating in self actualization has all the hallmarks of being guided by the ancient Greek notion of teleology – that is there are perfect forms of our existence, including of ourselves, which we may progress toward in stages, if ultimately we move through and transcend all accidents of nature.
Though the Greeks may have done well to imagine them as orientating guidance, it is not hard for us to believe today that perfect forms beyond nature do not really exist. Moreover, it is not Maslow alone who let residual teleology lurk within the background of what he probably took to be a modern, scientific pursuit of truth. Similar as the notion of teleological forms beyond nature, modernity sought universal, foundational truth beyond nature. The difference being that modernity was even more experimental, as it did not have the formal hypothesis of ideal forms to set clear limits on behavior and pursuit of foundational truth; and, with verifiable advances being attained indeed, in science, medicine and technology, whatever destruction and wreckage to traditional ways and forms came to be seen as a necessary hazard in the quest of that foundational truth. This unshakable confidence in scientific pursuit gained pre-eminent currency in "The Enlightenment", a project by which we were to be liberated form all religious dogma, tradition, superstition, custom and habit to discover the true nature of our selves and the world around. Its practitioners have come to call themselves "progressives." For the "progressive", "change" is a great value of itself, as it inevitably leads to progress – thus, sacrifices and wreckage by way of change were necessary and eminently worthwhile.
"The Stoic acceptance was an attempt to transubstantiate even the repugnant aspects of existence, the excremental, into the essentially divine" – Kenneth Burke
Hence, we take Maslow's Hierarchy of Motives, with a post modern understanding that maximizations become toxic to humans as biological creatures; and transform it by setting motives into an optimizing agenda, as Aristotle might advise for human biology; this, so that Whites are better able to deal with their opposite sex; also, so that our White warriors will be better able to live, fight and prevail; as they are naturally more cognizant and less impervious to social and environmental toxins than are non-Whites.
Modernity is characterized by "change" assuming its progress toward foundational truth, irrespective of hypothesized forms, while Post Modernity is characterized as negotiating between progress/change and the reconstruction of traditional forms.
While Modernity's valuation of progress through change led to arbitrariness and confusion, with inherent contradictions, 'be different so you can fit in', and recursively reconstructing loops, "oh, this result of change is no longer new, we must start the process of change all over again"...Post Modernity found theoretical grounds to validate a break in the continual modernist transformations. That one may engage and reconstruct traditional forms, while not being obliged to abandon the modernist project of innovation and advance, altogether.
Thus, as we have said previously, in the example of gender relations, we balance and manage negotiations by a quaternary system set in an optimality of motives. The modernist female quest for achievement may be balanced with somewhat harder tests to her merit on basic levels, so that she is not too liberal, giving away profound legacy all too easily because she is not sufficiently empathetic with the difficulty and the struggle that has gone before her. With the recognition of her Actualization and its contributions, should she choose that pursuit, she may also be obligated to be graceful enough to allow for more latitude of Being and Selfhood for White Men (as opposed to his being a wimp or a pig no matter what he does – a pig if he treats her as an equal, one of the boys, and a wimp if he insults her autonomy by treating her as a lady – Pearce/Rossi), so that White men are not as likely to be over-compensating and crazy when they move toward positions of Actualization.
This is not to be misconstrued as saying that RaHoWa is crazy and overcompensating. On the contrary, with the needs for White survival being what they are, its successful deployment requires that we seek girding in the more fundamental motivational levels; and the expulsion of non-Whites would be White Actualization by definition. White men should not be expected to follow the same logics of meaning and action as Jews and Blacks. These are incommensurate ways of life. The idea of post modernity for Whites is to be able to use modernist change, advance and innovation where it is useful for Whites and to transcend "the pangs of self loathing for the appearance of conformity", to be able to reconstruct traditional White practices where it is more useful for Whites, as will perhaps more often be the case.
With post modernity, gender traditionalists, the female who does not want to be one of the boys, but would prefer for her gender's difference to be respected, wants to be a mother and a wife, most centrally; and the man who wants to be the provider and achieve laudable things can both do so, without feeling like old fashioned conformists, knowing that they are choosing these roles, while having the capacity to step outside, and modify their practices, should they wish - he relaxes by cooking sometimes and she enjoys an occasional cigar; he likes to work at home while she'd like to do business in public.
The post modern turn is neither trivial nor destructive to Whites - on the contrary. It says that's enough of the Enlightenment project of putting all traditional forms and practices constantly at risk in quest of foundational truth, be it mathematical, empirical or theoretical. It no longer assumes that change necessarily leads to progress. We have seen that it does not necessarily at all.
Courage requires understanding - thusly we proceed.
We want change and upheaval in the manner of RaHoWa for our liberation from ZOG and mulatto supremacism; nevertheless, our victory requires some maintenance, reconstruction and improvement of the White form; while change can lead to progress and we certainly value scientific, technological and other kinds of advance, as a special province of Whites; and whereas Enlightenment style empiricism liberated us from mere tradition, custom, habit, religion and superstition, we can, with post modern knowledge, reconstruct the traditions and practices of our folk, not only where they are useful and enjoyable, but where they are imperative – this is the second liberation, from mere facticity and into hermeneutic flexibility; the second liberation, from mere facts, allows us to reconstruct our form as it is imperative to White survival. This is not old fashioned conservatism we are talking about, but revolution. We are not experimental but vigilant of the White form. Post modernity has far more respect for that than does modernity.
I began my talks with Insurgent with a quote from the Basque philosopher, Unamuno. I don't remember it exactly, but it was something quite to the effect of, we need a vision of perfection toward which to strive; and with that view fixed, changes of fortune are as waves crashing harmlessly against rocks of our boundaries.
That is the class and form of Whites - RaHoWa 14!
Wolf Europe