August 12, 2011
By Daniel Sienkiewicz
Note: The following essay is based on the third Sunic Journal interview of Daniel Sienkiewicz.
- Specifically, how it is that anti-racism is not innocent;
- Proposing a non-Jewish definition and criterion of leftism – the White Class;
- Corporeal Self And Functions of The Autobiographical Self;
- Hippies as a movement for Being, an incommensurate gender agenda with feminism’s quest for Actualization during the 1960s;
- Relevant historical exemplars of feminism: from the radical de Beavoir to the modern Friedan to the neo-traditional Gilligan;
- Transforming Maslow’s hierarchy of motives into an optimal management of Being, Selfhood, Socialization and Self Actualization.
I was actually quite happy with the theoretical discussion from last time – “Praxis: Getting the Ship of White Separatism on Course” – and that, to me, is surprising, unusual for a theoretical discussion – normally for a discussion of that length and complexity regarding theoretical matters, there would be something gnawing at me – that was not the case. There is nothing that I would change, only a few things that could use more clarification; after that, some ideas to expand upon.
Thus, it is not surprising that I was not quite as satisfied with my more recent discussion, on The Incommensurate Intersection of White Individuation and Gender Agendas.
First, to clarify matters of the prior discussion: the most fundamental point that we made is that anti-racism is Cartesian – it is not innocent; it is prejudice; it is hurting and it is killing people.
Specifically, how it is that anti-racism is not innocent
Now, how is that so? Well, in prohibiting the validity of racial classifications and discrimination on the basis of those classifications, systems of accountability and ecology are being abrogated such that those marginalized, for whatever reason, in the systemic process of what would have been, for example, the White class, are vulnerable to exploitation and to being killed off.
Ok, so we’ve asserted that anti racism is Cartesian, that it is not innocent, it is in fact prejudice, hurting and killing people It is prejudice against anybody who is not on top of the process at the moment; anybody who is the least bit reliant on their class. We may add that is operationally verifiable and warrantably assertable.
For a concrete example of its incursion upon the group evolutionary process of Whites; by breaking down The White class boundaries, the way is opened for opportunistic outsiders – as such, they can even take “the cream of the crop.” As happens for example, through Jewish propagandizing of young White girls, in earlier stages of their normal evolutionary process; put into interaction with Blacks, who have a faster sexual maturity as Rushton points out.
Proposing a non-Jewish definition and criterion of leftism – the White Class
This breaking down of class bounds is done largely by a phony notion of leftism promoted by Jews; normal leftism would be about the full white class, including, those marginalized within the class – marginals can be significant in that they have more of a vested interest in the maintenance of the class boundaries as they are somewhat less independent; and they also comprise some of those in earlier stages of development, such as the young White girl who will one day be the cream of the crop; developmental processes are not something handled well by the Cartesian and anti-social notion of civil individual rights – even within a life span, let alone a developmental unit of analysis that might recognize many generations. But Jewish elites, as usual, have perverted what would be the remedial leftist notion, instead defining marginals as those outside of the class, defining outside groups, non-whites, as marginals.
We’ve been blinded by Cartesianism and have thus allowed this hideous exploitation to be carried off, this distortion of individualism, civil rights, and gender relations.
We have asserted that this destruction of White class bounds results from modernity’s scientism leaving us vulnerable – as such a bit naively to the machinations of Jewish and other non-White group interests; as well as to the interests of the plutocrats, corporatists and the military industrial complex
To correct this, we propose the post modern turn to re-invoke the legitimacy of the White Class.
The management of that protracted scope, of the class, requires the analog capacity of metaphors to some extent; last time, I went rather abruptly into a discussion of the importance of metaphors without providing a little background that The Vienna School of Logical Positivism tried and failed to create a language free of metaphor. Just as well, since metaphors are apparently necessary for managing wider frames of analysis, such as patterns of the White Class.
The hermeneutic turn was an embracing of this, seeing that we could not and should not seek to free ourselves of narrative and historical perspective. We’ll show how that can work in moment.
The postmodern, social and hermeneutic notion of coherence is necessary to the management of our White class.
The failure of logical positivism, as it was trying to nail everything to a graspable empirical foundation, brings me to the next matter that would have called for more elaboration from last time – in focusing on the process of interactive engagement with the objects of inquiry, I neglected some the furtive, social aspect of scientific study as premisary – something that our friend Gregor reminded us of with this quote from Thomas Kuhn, underscoring that collegial and social aspect of scientific endeavor as preliminary: quote ‘a paradigm governs, in the first instance, not a subject matter, but rather a group of practitioners.”
The articulation and definition attempted here corresponds well with Sunic’s project to disentangle useful notions – in this case disentangle them from Jewish corruption. For example, Leftism should be for us – since it should represent the interests of our full class, our relative concerns as a socially related group; as opposed to Rightist objectivism beyond accountability and beyond us. One thing that may cause Whites to flee to the right is the false attribution that it is the only harbor of truth and moral order. There has never been anarchy. On the contrary, there is no avoiding truth and moral order; there will always be things we can, might or cannot do; and these concerns are better managed and best consciously so with the class outlook of the left. For prime example, voluntary enclaves of single sex partner for life hopefuls, absolute monogamy, as a sacrament should be institutionalized as viable option for whomever would choose it. Another thing that may cause us to flee in the counter productive direction of the right, and against our full class interests as Whites, is the idea that we could lose our individuality – so important to us as Whites.
Corporeal Self And Functions of The Autobiographical Self
Since our culture maintains the importance of individuality for some good reasons we must tease it apart from right wing attributions that serve Jewish interests – in particular, the portrayal of us as inhumane.
Coherence is the first task of any individual in the world. The postmodern notion of coherence recognizes the contingent, interactive and relational aspects of individualism. This is not coherentism – coherentism would be the lineal, modern, Cartesian and impervious notion of coherence as it pursues a fixed Archimedean point beyond nature.
This “modernist”, Cartesian notion of coherence lent itself to individualism in the empirical conception of civil rights by Locke, in which individuals are tabula rasa – that is, out of context and process and therefore given an absurd attribution of sameness or equality to everyone; from whom they were otherwise detached – this is corrected with this hermeneutic notion of individualism wherein people do have some shared reference through the internal relation of co-evolution and language (there is no private language); however, everyone does not have the same and equal perceptions, but rather people occupy different positions in process and in situations; are immersed in different narrative reference, frames, history, different logics of meaning and action, stages in developmental process, conversations interacting in ways that can change their meaning, different social conversations attributing vastly different values, levels of importance, and thus can have vastly different evaluations of what they perceive. Though it is not absolutely necessary, if there is to be a successful notion of the individual, since we as White people like to invoke individuality for particular reasons, we go with the notion that there are two important aspects of individuality, the corporeal and the autobiographical. This has got to be managed in a non-Cartesian sense of connecting and managing a back and forth relation of self from the more empirical to the more narrative – thus, replacing a fixed location for the self with a self more like an on-going film reel.
Otherwise, as William James observed, with the Cartesian notion of self, absurdly, one would have to be in two places at once. Harré piled on that the “mind” is a four letter word and it should not be used; taking a page from Nietzsche, said that psychologists think that they are drawing maps of the mind, when in fact they are really only drawing maps of maps – not describing, but making interpretations of interpretations, taking out of context what is being done. By contrast, the autobiographical self is narrative, an ongoing process; not being a static monadic entity, one can negotiate obstacles such as paradoxes and apparent contradictions through various amendments in narrative; coming back to coherence through the tacking back and forth – such as post modern coherence affords in recognizing interaction and contingency.
While recognizing social construction and the class of Whites as preliminary to the individual, that nobody exists outside of interaction, relation and the negotiation of how things count with others – and any honest notion of individuality is accountable as such – there are certain aspects of what we may call individualism that are more than valid. I’ll share with you a few that I have gleaned from Harré, a professor from Oxford.
That is, that there are two kinds of self, a corporeal and an autobiographical.
Our corporeal, embodied selves are profound; Nietzsche might say, bound to be wiser than our conscious selves and intentions, having evolved over tens of thousands of years. This makes me a bit wary of eugenics; it is also why I would recommend that anyone pay attention to the clues that our biology is giving us rather than trying to alter it with chemicals or surgery – rather, one ought to turn critical attention outward to social expectations – who is reasonable, who is not.
But while there are aspects of agency to our corporeal, physical self, in say, a clasping action; deliberated, planned coherence, and the accountability, agency and warrant that go along with it require an autobiographical notion of self.
This second, autobiographical aspect of the self in the post modern is opposed to the modernist notion of self – the static and monadic self of Freudian psychology, unfolding toward its ultimate telos, detached from the social world and doing all sorts of horrible things; having hidden wishes, neuroses, latencies, or whatever one might libel you with.
Coherence is the first task of any individual in the world; by establishing rules and coming back to the said course one can provide accounts against false and negative accusations.
Moreover, it is by interacting with others and receiving requests for accounts, Shotter explains, that one develops a narrative understanding of self – in fact, one depends upon these requests for an account – as there is no private language.
Thus, one is not only curing the maladies of Cartesianism through autobiographical coherence of self – in appropriating from the available conversations one may also establish agency by setting down these rules for one’s self; by referring back to them one has proof that one is following the rule of their own choice – thus, an agent.
Remember, we said that the optimally competent post modern individual can choose to participate in traditional forms, can reconstruct the White class without the pangs of self loathing for appearing as a conformist – appearing traditional or conformist being taboos to modernity – which over values change, innovation, being new and different – nevertheless, the post modern individual can choose to disengage from traditional practices in order to make innovations; while being above the modernist paradox – the paradox – be different so you can fit in.
The autobiographical self facilitates coherence, accountability, agency and warrant through the establishment of rules; more, it enables the self to negotiate contradictions, paradoxes and obstacles because it is not lineal and strictly bound within the physical body. Unlike Africans, for example, who will often assert themselves episodically, momentarily, this autobiographical notion is particularly important to Europeans who are more sublimated and thus are normally, of their corporeality, not going to show their best attributes in an episode but rather over a pattern of behaviors in the protracted span that the class facilitates. Thus, if we are to capture our sublime features, which are not evident within the moment and episode, we especially require an autobiographical notion of self.
Finally, by following up on these rules set forth and yielding proof of positive results, the autobiographical self establishes warrant for proactive endeavor.
Hippies as a movement for Being, an incommensurate gender agenda with feminism’s quest for Actualization during the 1960s
Now then, the idea of a hermeneutic self is at least to some extent following through on Heidegger’s philosophy. For me, a crucial moment of understanding came when I took a bit of Heidegger’s advice and set my life into a historical, narrative perspective.
I set the autobiography of my early formative years against the background of The Viet Nam War, and a tension between hippies and feminists. From there things began to make sense.
Hippies were not a trivial movement in my assessment. They were against going to war out of habit – wars just seemed to be an endless thing taken for granted. By contrast, the hippies were about taking for granted the right of the male of the species to Be. My first clue that Being was a central issue to the Hippie movement was the January 1967 Be-In in San Francisco’s Golden Gate Park – sort of an inauguration to the Hippie movement in popular culture.
Then clues started forming a pattern. Most clarifying that it had to do with the Being of males as the essence of the Hippie movement – in particular, a song from the rock opera, “Hair”, called “My Conviction”, trivial on the surface of it, proposing that it was a legitimate expression for males to rebel against Spartan military terms and take on some of the attributes normally associated with females…long hair, elaborate attire and so on, to symbolize that their DNA had similar intrinsic genetic value to females…other songs from Hair made a similar point – Walking in Space: “pretending it’s a chore to ship us of to war.. ..in this great dive we rediscover sensation, how dare they try to end this beauty” – they weren’t shipping women off to war.
Paul Tillich, in his book “The Courage to Be” just before the onset of the hippie movement, suggested that one must love one’s self enough to accept in one’s self that which is unacceptable – that sounded like Being to me; a lot like Hippie Being. Now, before you say that I am promoting nihilism, irresponsibility and a lack of accountability, you must understand that Tillich’s existential project was to make our involvement in the world sufficiently relative – certainly enough so that we may begin to see that what we were told was unacceptable in no uncertain, objective terms, just may be more relative than we thought – in fact, may finally be relatively acceptable upon deeper thought – as are the interests of our White Class – relative to our class.
This notion of Being would also be related to a respect for the ordinary organic processes of the corporeal self, such as its need for food and sleep – as in Søren Kierkagaard’s statement that “sleeping is the highest genius”
Heidegger’s ongoing philosophical concern for the importance of Being provided for me a farther clue that the Hippies might be about something vital. Now, I take Heidegger’s talk of Being for this context in the more normal, organic sense, to be like a slow meandering, taking poetic forms, poesis, an unfolding that allows for a fully ruminated understanding, a taking to heart what is essential from that and giving thanks.
In Heidegger-like fashion, there was a corollary in being’s etymology; the notion of let me Be – as in, leave me alone; I do not want to go to Viet Nam to die for whatever perceived reasons.
Being is about the very struggle for existence that we as awakened Whites take as the vital cause for our people.
Rollo May described the hippie movement as a call for a right below rights – so we were looking at the most fundamental, radical part of the hierarchy of motives.
This was not trivial. It was a war protest against the background of the Viet Nam war, recognizing intrinsic value in males who were considered so intrinsically valueless as to have to go to Viet Nam and die for yet another in a succession of corporate, military industrial complex affairs, for tire rubber, whatever. Against that background, women were indeed, a bit more obliged than usual to allow White males to Be – understood in a sense related to the corporeal self, of fundamental organic pattern, attributing its intrinsic value to their evolution and DNA.
Now I am decidedly not recommending a return to hippie times; but I do want to cull the valid aspects, to some extent, in a way that I will discuss in moment, for the purpose of negotiating White gender relations.
I have rarely heard positive things said about the Hippies, and especially not by White Separatists. But let me tell you some things – look at Wood Stock, for example.. you can see my brother in one picture; he was there.. you’ll see some Blacks, but not many…and it was my experience as a child and a young adolescent during the later stages of those times, that the essence of the Hippie movement, had nothing to do with Black civil rights – that was peripheral at most. That stuff was imposed and co-opted by Jewish interests. It is yet another case of having to disentangle Jewish co-option from an idea. My friends and I had long hair, we did the Hippie thing, and none of us liked Blacks – some less than others; we saw the violent, destructive race riots, we saw them at school and were forced to recognize them as other people, with another agenda, behaving differently, aggressively, about their dignity or integrity, whatever…
Another thing – I would not say that it was accurate to characterize us as pacifists. Though we were too young to be subject to the draft, I am sure that what we would have been against having to go to these huge, nonsensical, corporate wars. Nevertheless, each of us would have fought and violently so, if necessary, for what was rightfully ours. It was about the Being, the intrinsic value of the White male and what was rightfully ours as established through co-evolution.
Nor was the Hippie movement about fee love. Not as it was a movement for male being, as I submit it was; free love was just neo-traditional incitement. We liked girls, of course; but what does it matter if a male announces he wants “free love”? I don’t think that is going to go over too big coming from many men. Now, if women say that they want free love, of course that can be meaningful. But, again, this was more a Jewish imposition, pandering to women and receiving impetus from Herbert Marcus’s Eros and Civilization, his call for polymorphous perversion; along with some aspects of the women’s liberation movement and so on. So again, we need to disentangle the Jewish influence from the idea of Hippies for those who would try to say it was all about free love and sexual revolution.
Now, the Hippies were guilty of some things – I do not believe that they were sufficiently intellectual or articulate as a group. I think that had to do with their very agenda – Being was not a theoretically ambitious, rigorous endeavor precisely because it was about natural, organic being. Even so prominent a Hippie as John Lennon was inarticulate as to the movement – saying things like, “it was a great way to pick up girls.” But it was not so shallow as a mere technique to do just that. Nevertheless, one can see the precariousness and vulnerability of males trying to assert their right, for lack of a better word, to Be (wimp, lazy bum). But I see hope in its requirement, as Being necessitates borders and action to reconstruct the White class boundaries somewhere along the line, in process – There is no being without that, for anybody.
Had Hippies been sufficiently articulate, they would have established that Being requires a notion of sex as sacrament – voluntary enclaves of those committed to a single sex partner for life – without that option, that unused potentiality for change, choice and freedom of being are enormously reduced
Drug experimentation and use was an aspect of the Hippie thing. And though I tend to agree with those who consider that a public health and not a criminal issue; and that it is more an effect than a cause of problems (specifically, one is searching for Being) I am not so uncritical of drugs as I once was.
It was a part of it though, of Being for males, because it was a way to have fun, elaborate, engage and tap into organic processes that did not the involve the sometimes stringent expectations of females.
However, before it sounds like I am the drug advocate: I would just say, alcohol, marijuana and mushrooms maybe sometimes if you’ve developed yourself enough, your forebrain and a philosophical understanding of yourself enough – maybe, so long as that it does not make you neurotic, arbitrarily destructive, whatever – even so, be careful. Even with weed, you are still putting smoke in your lungs and they have bred it so that it is very strong nowadays. I’ve heard of people having bad experiences with mushrooms – though it was almost always the case that they took a massive over dose. Cocaine, I think is very dangerous; you’ve never felt better for 15 minutes and then you’ve never felt worse.. ..because your brain stopped producing all the endorphins that it took the cocaine crystal to be.. you lose all balance of pleasure….life is just utterly sad and miserable..so much so that when someone has committed suicide, it is my first hypothesis that they were coming down off of cocaine. I imagine other synthetic drugs are similar…crystal meth and so on..don’t know from experience; but, I want to go back to the corporeal and its profound evolution. when you mess with substances you are messing with profound evolution. which we should tend to believe is normally correct, not in need of alteration. However, I must say that people who have never used any mind alteration often turn out weird, superficial and inhumane. Nevertheless, by and large, better to err in the direction of dealing with your emotions and developing your intellect; rather be critical of the social realm, to look for problems there than in solution from drugs – intellectualism, which the hippies were short on, is better. Even so, despite drug use, that was not the essential issue of the Hippies – it was about Being, especially for the male of the species.
Pardon the digression – but the issue of Hippies was Being for White males. It was not trivial – in fact it is necessary and an issue that has not been resolved to this day – its incommensuration with the agendas of feminist and neo-traditional women.
Relevant historical exemplars of feminism: from the radical de Beavoir to the modern Friedan to the neo-traditional Gilligan
Getting back to the hermeneutic context of my narrative history…in the 60’s. While the Hippies were about the right of the White male of the species to Be the distinguishing aspect coming from feminists was in the opposite direction. Not about the base of the hierarchy, organic being, but about achievement.
In moving to the discussion of gender relations, to feminism, I want to begin by acknowledging that I think that Peter Schaenk has established a good starting point – citing Karl Marx’s statement that marriage is institutionalized slavery of women and therefore liberation of women is necessary to the liberation of human kind. That would characterize the agenda of radical feminists; their liberation would supposedly necessitate the destruction of the White Class. It is not that monogamy and marriage are not important, they are – our moral order requires the institutionalization of absolute monogamy (for life) and marriage as sacred – and must necessarily be defended against this – but the boundary of the class is even more fundamental. Otherwise, marriage is just a berth on a sinking ship. This was an attack on the White Class, its central, most vital alliance, between women and men; farther assaulted, of course, by the Authoritarian Personality, Adorno et al.
That is why it is so necessary to use the post modern turn, the decidedly non-Cartesian notion of our co-evolution as White men and Women, to reassert the validity of the White Class and its boundaries.
There are no White women or White children without White men – that is where the validity of White male Being, existence, gains more respect; but only if the troubling tautology on this level is over come – hard to acknowledge for its base simplicity: no White women and children without White men; I don’t like you because you do not like me; she rejects me and so, liking myself, I reject her and have freedom to seek another.
We are born to love women. What could be more painful and destructive than to have our co-evolutionary women pitted against us? We are mammals, despite the Jewish Matrix flouting of that notion, and as mammals we are deeply caring about relationships.
We can work out an all around fair and satisfying management of White gender relations if those bounds that recognize our mutual interests are made clear.
Back to the radical feminists attacking the White class. The first prominent exponent of feminism relevant to us as White separatists would be Simone de Beauvoir, 1948. She followed Marx’s line. As Sandrine Dauphin wrote:
[De Beauvoir] became more radical in the sense that the means of liberation became specific to women, they deal with individual experience: “I am for the abolition of the family. It is through the intermediary of the family that the patriarchal world exploits women.” She excludes feminism from institutional politics yet integrates it in revolutionary politics, which socially, economically and culturally overturns society. She made feminism into the avant-garde of the socialist revolution, recognizing that the suppression of the family and familial structures would upset capitalism. Since women constitute the primary oppressed group, their liberation, in a domino effect, would spur the liberation of other oppressed groups.
By eliminating the family, feminism would thus transform the structure of society. Simone de Beauvoir turns feminism into much more than the demand for equality between men and women. It has a political function, by proposing an alternative management of society. In this way, she remained quite socialist and refined her reflection to the point of giving feminism the magnitude of a true political movement. Socialism is a body of thought, and feminism as such, according to Simone de Beauvoir, is an integral part of socialism.
We might note first of all of de Beauvoir that her analysis of men focuses on male elites only, such as Leo Tolstoy. She pays no attention to ordinary men, let alone the ones really down on their luck. She has nothing to say here of the millions who have been considered so intrinsically valueless as to be required to die in war. Nevertheless, there is enough scholarly background in her work to have provided inspiration and apparatus for succeeding generations of feminists.
Exactly. Interestingly, I traced the two next important feminists each as having their inspirational source in a single line from de Beauvoir: Betty Friedan, Jewish, 1963, who took feminism in a modernist direction in the Feminine Mystique; and Carol Gilligan, 1983, from Harvard, who also took as her point of departure another line in de Beauvoir.
Don’t worry, we’re not getting off track, we’re going to show how this bears upon the post modern turn for Whites in their effort to reconstruct and advance the White class.
de Beauvoir was primarily paying attention to elite White men; and Friedan followed that lead, focusing on the top as well. Before discussing Friedan, the exemplar and probably most influential of the American feminists, I’d like to make some honorable mentions.
Helen Gurley Brown, Jewish – founding editor of the highly popular Cosmopolitan magazine: I could see that her book “Sex and the Single Girl” was based on Søren Kierkegaard’s “Either/Or” – her gist being that a girl either remains ‘as virginal as a Sunkist orange’ or she goes ahead and has sex outside of marriage; she is going to suffer either way, so may as well have the enjoyment of sex – makes quick work of accountability; and any treatment of sex as being important, let alone an option to treat it as sacral; an option I would recommend as essential to freedom in allowing for choice; and toward the survival of Whites through a fair management of the White pattern.
An honorable mention also goes to Gloria Steinham – Jewish. Interestingly, 1973 was the only year that her magazine, Ms., made money. Another honorable mention to Elizabeth Holtzman, Jewish, whose popularity came at the same time, when she shockingly unseated the long term incumbent, the infamous Emmanuel Cellar – his already having achieved his dirty work destroying America’s White Class bounds as the architect of the Immigration and Naturalization Act, pushed through in of 1965 – which, MacDonald pointed out, transformed America’s demographic make up toward non-White – Holtzman ousting Cellar by running on an Equal Rights for Women Amendment. This also suspiciously marks an important time in our hermeneutic regarding the Hippies – As The Viet Nam War was just ending, the Hippie movement lost impetus almost over night. Suddenly the impetus behind male Being was completely gone; not having to shoulder the guilt of their clear expendability in the war, White male Being was eclipsed by the prerogatives of Jewish feminism.
Popular and radical feminism’s ascent was held in place by a paradox; by radical leftists gaining tenure at universities; set into systemic runaway by modernist feminists such as Friedan; and only slightly balanced later by neo-traditionalist feminists.
Feminism’s overtaking male being was strengthened through an important paradox – a problematic practice as noted by Pearce and Rossi in the early 80’s: Even well meaning males can always be put in the wrong within the problematic practices of feminism – Specifically, if he tries to treat her as an equal, just like one of the boys in accordance with modernist feminism, then he can be taken for a “male chauvinist pig” who sees the world only in male terms, not respecting the special qualities of her gender; on the other hand, if he attempts to treat her gingerly, with traditionalist deference and respect for the special qualities of her gender, then he can be construed as a ‘wimp’ and a condescending patriarch who does not respect her autonomy, choice and agency. Thus, a male can always be construed as “wimp” or a “pig”, no matter what he does.
Furthering this systemic runaway in gender relations was the Marxists long march through the institutions – with anti-White leftists gaining tenured professorships in the universities the runaway effect of gender estrangement gained velocity; these tenured professors pandering and being pandered to by 18-24 year olds, reconstructing the same anti-White world view in perpetuity. This was farther exacerbated by the fact that the university, being a big business, is largely in the big business of selling talk.
This, by itself, creates a need for abnormal talk – viz. something to say other than ordinary, stable White life – something “interesting”, exceptions to discuss as liberals (liberals leftists, those who do not have a problem with broaching White class bounds) like to do – perhaps they do not want to be bored – too low on the hierarchy; or perhaps the ordinary is not novel and entertaining enough to collect tuition dollars.
Backing up a bit, in order to further trace sources of this runaway effect and hopefully gain some control: despite its awkward match with men getting sent to Viet Nam to die, feminism was very prominent in the context of America beginning in the 60’s – with Helen Gurley Brown’s popular Sex and The Single Girl, 1962, and Betty Friedan’s academically backed “The Feminine Mystique”, 1963.
I noticed something interesting in Friedan – that not only was she as student of Abraham Maslow’s but she was actually using his Hierarchy of Motives, in proposing that women were being made neurotic by having their higher individual potentials denied by traditional gender roles – this was to my theoretical delight as I was already thinking in terms of setting gender relations into Maslow’s hierarchy in order to understand them and try to work them out fairly in a theoretical sense. Maslow’s hierarchy of motives proposed that people sought fulfillment on higher levels successively, as basic levels of need were satisfied – from survival and safety, the most basic, and ultimately to the quote, farther reaches, self-actualization as highest. With that, Friedan proposed that women needed individual actualization in order to be liberated from the limitations of their traditionally imposed gender role, which she called The Feminine Mystique; as it was causing misery and neuroses – something that was being foisted upon women by Madison Avenue image makers in order to sell them products as housewives, to keep them limited and out of the work force now that they were no longer necessary as workers with men having come back from World War II.
This is a distinctly modernist notion of individualism that she maintained – and of gender relations as well, with individual women having the same needs as men, culture irrespective.
I traced Friedan’s seminal influence to a single 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.” Thus, in the Feminine Mystique, she is doing something important in a negative sense, by going along with this rejection of Aristotle’s sage advice that human’s, being biological, are evolved for optimal, not maximal levels of need satisfaction; she is advocating for the toxicity of quantification and runaway. This clued me farther to take a critical view toward reworking this modernist paradigm of Maslow’s, in favor of a framework providing for an optimal management of needs rather than a hierachical maximization and quantification of needs.
A typically American thing is self actualization and self maximization – .a be all you can be mentality that has undoubtedly contributed to America’s runaway. Nevertheless, I do not think it would be wise, like Marxists, to try to thwart human achievement; however, it should be taken back into the context of an optimal management; indeed, those moments of accomplishment and recognition prompting one to turn away from the toxicities of additional maximization; rather to turn attention to the fostering grounds, the processes of Being, Selfhood, and most especially, of Socialization to be as respected as Actualization. In fact, for us, as Whites now, the greatest measure of Self Actualization will be those who are able to effect Socialization of the White Class; its boundaries in securing the existence of our people and a future for White Children.
The post modern program is to manage qualitatively formed progress and reconstruction; to manage optimality as opposed to maximization, quantification and lineal progress
The most important thing that I have to do is to assist in the relative devaluing of actualization, and the establishment of Being’s importance along with the elevation of selfhood – that is, take ordinary routines to commensurate value, and first and foremost, of socialization.
Now again, the post modern, hermeneutic turn calls for a tacking back and forth as need be from close readings of physical facts then balanced with a protracted narrative, somewhat metaphoric frames of analysis – and then back again and so on, in a processual management – as opposed to a rigid and false quest for fixed, Archemedian points imagined outside of nature.
I do not aspire to do away with the notion of actualization, but to put it into balance; “I don’t have to tell you about the tyranny of patterns”, Bateson said, “that is the rubric under which we meet, but what you may not know is that you have to accept them.” In striving singularly after actualization and its maximization, there are going to be reflexive reversals and aberration – a calling back to pattern, in other words; as we were called back to our White pattern after being brain washed that we did not have to accept it.
“Patterns”, being a closer reading (but still open ended) of the corporeal side, and “narrative” on the more speculative and metaphoric side, are good ways of talking about the broader frames of reference of the class; in the post modern notion of coherence of the class. I am trying to get the notion of patterns in here as it is important, and think that it fits well as a heuristic on the more physical end of the hermeneutic.
Conservatives and right-wingers have not done patterns well; while Liberals are typically pointing to the exceptions as the important thing. I think of a man who cited the example of a questionnaire of five Russian men. They were asked if they preferred White or Black women. 4 of them said they preferred White. One said he preferred mulatto, even more than White, but did not approve of interracial couples. The man chuckled and said, where did he think mulattoes were supposed to come from? For him, this would seem to be a winning argument – paying attention to the exception and all the while ignoring the four other Russian men who said that they prefer White women. The pattern is more the issue.
Now then, we have modernist, feminist women seeking individuation and Actualization, expressing the “high grumbles”, as Maslow described it, of unfulfilled Self Actualization; at the same time, we have modernist males, Hippies, expressing “low grumbles”, a need for the basics on the Hierarchy of Needs, not to be considered so valueless as to be sent to die in Viet Nam – to Be, as I would call this level – but who knew and who hears to this day about these incommensurate gender agendas? The high grumbles of women look conceited in comparison to the low grumbles of men; perhaps they may have seemed ‘boring’ – even if those needs were more fundamental and more in turn. The conceitedness of having their basic needs called boring by women through their high grumbles must have driven more than a few men over the edge.
To make matters worse, the feminist critique, based on the paradigm of Maslow, was only looking at White men who were on top and was only treating them as if they were there as a result of a Maslowian differentiation of fulfillment of preceding, lower levels. In truth, a number of White men were on top as a result of a Freudian, rather a Nietzschean, sublimation of deprivation on lower levels. Their low grumbles were being dismissed. This made, makes criticizing White males at the top perverse at times, as they may have gotten there precisely as they were compelled by hardship and now they were being ridiculed for succeeding despite that. So, sometimes he is being punished on top of deprivation and sacrifice as if he’d gotten there by dint of oppressive advantage. More, it was often the case that men were on top simply because they were good, having been tested stringently on basic levels. Finally, there was the compensatory gesture of tradition, placing men in that role on top to balance off the sacrifices expected on basic levels, having to go to war and so on.
As we’ve said, de Beauvoir was only looking at and being critical of the lucky men who were at the top; having nothing to say about the legions of men who had just been slaughtered in World Wars one and two.
Nevertheless, you weren’t hearing about that from feminists within the Maslowian paradigm. Perhaps we were to feel more sorry for them for supposedly not making equal pay while men went off to Viet Nam to die. Or because they were subject to double standards on sex (as if the double standard did not have some fairness to balance women’s advantage in that realm off… as a woman can be a real bully in the realm of sex; similar as we have double standards regarding physical force so that men cannot bully women physically); but the focus was their being denied by the glass ceiling, the top of the hierarchy, self actualization. Nothing about the fact that men were denied the bottom and being deprived of the basics on the hierarchy, had been through tradition, with brutal rights of passage…and critically, nothing about how women occupied, were normally granted the basics and middle of the hierarchy, safety and security – and what I will call Selfhood, the acceptance as good enough, one’s engagement in orienting, stabilizing, normal routines – crucial values in life.
Now we know the traditional male agenda, of individual achievement and actualization; and the modernist feminist mirroring of those same goals by Friedan, but the neo traditional female agenda is a bit lesser known as it functions here, in Post Modernity
The neo-traditional female perspective did not aspire to the same things as men, but rather wanted her differences recognized and respected. Carol Gilligan, the next key figure in this four-way system of gender, emerged as the exemplar of the Neo Traditional female perspective with her book, In A Different Voice, 1982. Interestingly, she also took one line from de Beauvoir as her point of departure. I discovered this; and it was confirmed as true by a colleague of hers at Harvard.
de Beauvoir on Page 681 rejects what she calls male morality: de Beauvoir says “ 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.” In In A Different Voice, Gilligan would develop this into a notion of female morality that would bring into full circle the intersection of gender relations and individualism.
Though she set out, and did destroy Lawrence Kohlberg’s rendition of gender differences in morals, more deeply, what is being called male morality would seem to be characterized by Kant, more or less. On the other hand, Gilligan proposed that women have different moral concerns from men. Characteristically, male morality would not steal, was concerned for pure rights and justice. Female morality would steal medicine for a sick baby, etc. Female morality was more characterized by care and webs of relationship. She cited examples of how men and women responded differently to photos: shown a photo of a middle aged White man sitting alone at his desk, women were afraid, men were not; shown and woman and a man about to join hands in mid air of the flying trapeze act – women were not afraid, men were. Men, she submitted, were afraid when people were coming together while women were more afraid by people going apart.
With Gilligan we’ve come to a complete enough heuristic of gender relations: Neo Traditional men and Modernist women after Actualization; Hippies, being reversing Modernist men and Neo Traditional women seeking basic stability on the hierarchy of needs.
One of the beauties of a quaternary system is that it is too complicated in its interfaces to turn into runaway categories yet, simple enough to serve as a useful guideline.
So, we can pretty well understand these incommensurate gender agendas and mange them fairly perhaps if we can re-instantiate the full White class bounds. It would seem that we could afford female individual actualization if they are challenged and tested more on basic levels so that they are not so liberal when they reach positions of actualization, respecting the sacrifices and hardships that have gone into the full White Class and its bounds over the millennia, not giving things away too easily, not taking for granted battle and competition, after which they had to merely give sex to the winner, vanquished be damned, their ass not having been on the line. Conversely, it would seem that men ought to be granted a little more ease of Being, so that they are not so crazy as they strive after actualization – as Bateson described, “the ignominious bullying of Naven Ritual Rights of passage produced harsh, over compensating males.” As for the neo traditionalists, they, as post modernists, may participate in traditional gender roles without the pangs of self loathing for the appearance of conformity as they knowingly and by choice participate in reconstructing these practices and have the ability and choice for the modernist alternative should they wish.
Hence, this four way system in the post modern is a way to accommodate modernist and traditional gender needs both without necessary losses to either.
This is fairly theoretical, and maybe neither feminist nor traditional women will ever be fair and will only want hypergamy, the males on top – but while women in the heterogeneous society of America seem highly inclined to tall men, for example, I have seen women regularly taking men who are not tall in a homogeneous White society – perhaps that is an example that fairness is more possible in a homogeneous society.…in theory, things could be worked out fairly, should be…I think can be..but even if women are not so cooperative in letting men be, it is good for men to know, to have the raised consciousness, so to speak, that that is something that they need, and that it is right, non-trivial, and fair..
What could be more painful than having this Cartesian division from the women we are co evolved with through millennia? We need a new paradigmatic understanding of gender relations since a mess has been made of them – particularly exacerbated with the wreckage of White class bounds
Thus, I would like to propose a post modern alternative to the lineal, maximizing, quantifying, modernist hierarchy of motives to Actualiazation – that is, an optimal management of Being, Selfhood and Socialization are necessary to Actualization, from which men will not back down and to which the Actualized, when they are Actualized, are indebted, if they are honest.
While it may be charged that I am requiring that men be wimps, the answer is no. Fight or tactical flight (or stealthy infiltration) for Whites is the essence of good will. That is what determines intrinsic value, and I juxtapose it to right wing elitism. In line with Kant, if a person has a high i.q., wealth and beauty, but betrays Whites, these qualities only make them worse. If they are used on behalf of Whites, fine, wonderful, nobody should limit their horizons in any significant way. However, it is fight or tactical flight (or stealthy infiltration) on behalf of Whites, a horizontal thing, which establishes good will to the White Class.
Feminism is Cartesian. A disruption of the White Class that is an organic, ecological pattern, a means of accountability. The Genders are co-evolved. Co-evolution is a strictly non-Cartesian notion.
In sage contrast to de Beauvoir and Friedan’s modernist flouting of Aristotle’s recommendation of quest for the optimal, as opposed to the maximal, we need to get back to an optimal management of gender relations and individualism if we are to manage the White class properly, between the over compensating and reversing modernists men and women and neo traditionalist men and women; but first of all, it requires a return to the legitimacy of the White class, so that opportunistic exploitation of outsiders do not truncate the process. Note that it is possible to be an overcompensating modernist, in pursuit of actualization – Bill Clinton was a good example; actualization is not only the province of the a neo traditionalist male; but I don’t want to confuse the matter – overcompensation and reversal is not my idea anyway – but does wonderfully relate to the modernist paradox. It was a modernist requirement to be different – as opposed to being a participatory, conforming traditionalist. And, it resulted in a paradox – be different so you can fit in. The Hippies were very susceptible to this…being different was very important to them, part of the destruction of their movement.
Transforming Maslow’s hierarchy of motives into an optimal management of Being, Selfhood, Socialization and Self Actualization
In order to get some control of the runaway effects of modernity’s and Jewish breaking down of our class bounds, as I noted last time, increasing the one up position of young females and their incitement, making competition toxic as opportunist outsiders truncate the developmental processes within the class; I have proposed looking at the hierarchy of needs in a new way and taking needs and motives out of hierarchy and into optimal management of needs between White individuals and the genders.
Now, I am proposing these four aspects of individualism as guidelines to the essential needs of White folks in optimal management. Being, Selfhood, Socialization, Self Actualization.
Socialization: As a social constructionist – and I hasten to note that nothing I’ve heard causes me the least concern that social constructionism is insufficient, twin studies, Salutrean man, you name it – when discussing a management of individual and gender needs, Socialization is the only real feature of the four aspects I propose. Nothing and no individual exists in isolation, outside of interaction, relations; and how facts count must be negotiated with others. When we are talking about Socialization, we are of course talking about reconstruction of the White Class in ecological relation to our habitats. This is a much more severe and strict a notion of classification than is comported in the ad hoc empirical idea of freedom of association, or even freedom from association. We are assuming that patterns of DNA are deep and complex, their value not always available to casual observation. Hence, we are suspect of eugenics, as being superficial, figuring that is going to happen on some level anyway…Fight or tactical flight (which would include stealthy infiltration) is the measure of good will… As we have said, those less great or impaired for whatever reason, the old, may make better fighters as thy have less to lose. Socialization for us, good will for us, is fight or flight on behalf of Whites – without that, all other attributes, intelligence, wealth, beauty, strength, power, can only make a White person a worse traitor.
The marginals indeed, would often be inclined to maintain the system as they are more dependent upon the class than are the alphas, and more in keeping with environmental variables, perhaps less able to over-graze..of course they can be traitors and over grazers too..as can the narrow minded alphas. But let us understand that in negotiating a balance, there is going to be a moral order, whether we organize it or let it happen wily-nilly – there will always be things that we can, cannot or might do in social relations. There has never been anarchy. Thus, we ought to do it consciously; and balance things consciously rather than merely having nature balance things off through its catastrophe. We are talking about an optimal balance of these four aspects of individualism and gender within the socialization of the White Class
At any rate, socialization, in seeing the systemic interrelatedness, ecology and accountability to the class, allows for the qualitative and full processual development of various members of the class at various stages in the developmental process as they meander and occupy their niche functions; life, especially within the class, is more a matter of cooperation than competition. Humans are mammals, they care about relationships, I don’t care what the movie the Matrix says in its Jewish agenda to make that Aristotlean notion seem backward, evil, nerdy and White. There has never been an anarchy and never will be – there will always be some things you can, cannot or might do. Now to the other levels of White Socialization -
Being is the most fundamental level of the life process, the basic level of the hierarchy, so to speak. Being biological, people are dependent upon optimality, not maximizations; being is a deliberate turning back from the toxicities of quantification that are inherent in the Maslowian paradigm. It is characterized by a valuation of biological processes as in Søren Kierkegaard’s claim that “Sleeping is the highest genius”; as in Bateson’s observation that “Naven Ritual Rights of Passage produced harsh, over compensating males.” As where Burke says, “The Stoic acceptance was an attempt to transubstantiate even the repugnant aspects of existence, the excremental, into the essentially divine.” It is a notion of wanting to be left alone, not exploited…let me be! As Heidegger says, being is a verb, therefore not entirely passive, rather it lends motives to the creation of cultural boundaries.. ..along with the non-Cartesian “there being”, finding one’s self “out there”, it is like poesis, a slow, qualitative meandering, setting out what is before and after optimal rumination, taking to heart what is essential, giving thanks. Kenneth Burke has another good one here – “rather than being fulfilling, primitivism is emptying.” Being also implies that aspect of taking for granted, not being able to investigate everything we must take some things for granted, the borders of being, of our White Class…to be left alone…Again, Being requires a notion of sex as sacrament – institutionalization of voluntary enclaves for those committed to a single sex partner for life – without that option in life, choice and being are greatly reduced. This will provide a sacral aspect of our defense against Islam, Judaism and even Scientism and Christianity. Being as tactical retreat necessary for White recovery and revival.
We want to move toward outer-space, but we need not reach there this instant – we move there deliberately, at an optimal pace. Having done something and lived our lives, it will always be, even if an asteroid hits the earth, even if a super volcano or man made cataclysm destroys everything.
Now, being, selfhood and socialization are proposed as hedges against going crazy, but I want to make a distinction here – fighting on behalf of Whites in an effective way is not crazy – for us, that is a part of socialization
Selfhood is perhaps an even more interesting aspect: it works well with Habermas’s suggestion that unless we are able to see our subjective interests in a project we will not learn. Thus, I must recommend that White advocates find their subjective reward in pursuing not only the fourteen words but in their every day routines and work. I put this as the next level, rather aspect of Actualization, abandoning the hierarchical paradigm in favor of an optimal, processual and reconstructing one…Selfhood would contain those attributes that I’d described in Autobiography – Coherence, Accountability, Agency and Warrant – but not in unusual ways; on the contrary, by practicing reliable and every day routines, chores and work. People need routines to be happy and to make sense, patterns to gauge differences and that which is required next. How are we going to restore the valor and the esteem of this “blue collar” category? I have a suggestion – by imbuing it with a notion of the sacral. It works well with the sacral anyway, because the sacred is that which reconstructs in reverence the most essential episodes of our life and social functions. In this sense, we are placing it beyond, esteeming it beyond elitist values and the misplaced reverence for their potential exploitations [You can extol the virtues of Henry Ford’s assembly line, or you can look at New Jersey, ribboned with dirty highways going everywhere and nowhere because their destined point has been paved over]. The old craftsman’s guilds would seem to be a kind of sacral view of routine practice. This is something of a challenge, however, as Selfhood is not very esteemed in the west (perhaps for the paranoia of there being no White class boundaries). However, the Being of White Class boundaries and Sacralization of routine might go a long way toward curing the modernist pardox of “be different so you can fit in”
It is probably one of the most important tasks here to be critical of Self Actualization. My attention was focused on the hazard as relatively little attention has been paid to the dark side of self actualization. It got me to reflecting, not only on the disappointment and the narrow kind of hedonism that this quest might be prone to…but even worse, to reflexive reversal into aberration through the over stress of feeling obligated and toxically compelled to achievement …that is part of what makes a lot of men and probably women too, go crazy and do crazy things for sure. More, Jews, Black athletes and musicians are not good role models for Whites with their incommensurate ways. A White may betray Whites because he or she wants to be a hero and distinguish them self from the quote, lower levels – upon which actualization must depend anyway, aspects which should be accorded commensurate respect. Again, I am not proposing to do away with actualization, just looking to avert runaway and catastrophic reflexive effect, to place it within optimal systemic management of the temporal.
* If I may add a controversial suggestion: One of the things that I am most proud of from last time is the assertion that miscegenating White women are equivalent to men what rapists are for women. There may be a natural inclination to rape among some men, just as there may be a natural inclination to miscegenation among some women, but we need not accept it as necessary and good within the bounds of a nation. This is one of the advantages to social constructionism – we do not have to accept it as a merely natural cause and effect (as we do not, rape, for example), but can defer some to social evaluation. They are not only destroying 40,000 years of careful evolution, but they are putting us all at risk to degradation of our habitats, exploitation and violence.
The Jews may not be entirely responsible for miscegenation, although they have a large influence for sure – but they are certainly, largely responsible for preventing White men from doing anything about it. Though rape is not necessarily, literally a violent crime, it is treated as such; and it certainly is right to classify it as such, to consider it a very serious offense. The same could be true with miscegenation.
There might be a wish in some men to have women as they would, even 9 year old girls and so on – but it has been mandated against by social decree, by consensus. So it could be with miscegenation – there is no absolute excuse for women to do this.
Anti-racism is Cartesian. It is not innocent. It is prejudice. It is hurting and it is killing people. It is defined as a prohibition of classifying peoples and discriminating against them as such. It is not innocent; it is hurting people through the prohibition of classificatory boundaries of people; disabling the means of protection and accountability for those marginalized within the group systemic process; those, for whatever reason, not on top of the game at a moment within the systemically related pattern of the class – thus abetting their exploitation and destruction by opportunistic outsiders.
The Basque philosopher Unomuno said, in close approximation, that “one must have a vision of perfection”- for us a vision of our White Class perfectly sovereign – “and with that, the vicissitudes of chance and change are as waves crashing harmlessly upon the rocks” – of our White Class.
Separatism is a first step, separatism is the ultimate aim and separatism is always possible.
I would like to note a few things that I took for granted while originally writing this piece – first, I take for granted private property – although there should be plenty of public property too, of course; secondly, I do not appreciate effeminate men; but rather am advising some balance, as over the top masculine men are a real pain, and can be beyond stupid, downright cataclysmic – Blacks, for example, are characteristically too masculine. More, none of what I say is contradictory to nationalism and regionalism. It works fine with coordinated White separatisms – a plurality of White ethnostates.
1. Connection of Being to sex as sacrament – voluntary enclaves of single sex partner for life hopefuls – the idea being that freedom of choice is preserved with that option, no matter how few choose it.
This, along with the 14 Words, can provide a sacral aspect of our defense against Islam, Judaism and even Scientism (viz., bad/misapplied science)