I take your points. I know Maslow was a humanist and I know he cared deeply for humanity, at least until later on. Doesn't erase the fact that he made some really shocking statements near the end of his life, and that he did carry with him a concept, the "aggridant" which seems to me just a prettied up version of the type of social Darwinist/Aryan nonsense that is so prevalent in American psychological thinking. His thinking is pretty clear in his journal. Here I quote from the page scan I put in my article, which represents his later thinking; but the whole scan is pretty shocking. He's not waffling here. His opinion is quite clear, I think.

"How about facing the problem of cutting down India's population whether they agree or not, e.g., by medicating the water supply? How about paying for sterilization?

This all ties in with the aggridant question, which I don't dare bring up publicly except with aggridants. If aggridance really is a general superiority...what then? If these are genetically better & worse, what to do about it...Meanwhile I can keep my thoughts to myself & do battlefield survey, i.e., what energy I do have goes to the strong ones..."

"

It seems as he grew older he lost his Humanistic perspective and became a eugenicist whose ideas, had they been available, would certainly have found a home amongst members of the Third Reich.

This is the guy who talked about transcendence, peak experience, and who helped found two paradigm shifting journals. As a sociologist I'm curious what led this shift in his thinking.

I mean, it is pretty clear he's assigning a value to human beings here, and talking about trashing those without it.