Submitted by Joe Manning
C.G. Jung, protege of the father of psychoanalysis Sigmund Freud, is a man who has been proven to be a visionary. When one reads Jung, they simply cannot help but feel as if they are sharing the same amazement Dante felt as Virgil guided him through the layers of Hell. That isn’t to say reading Jung is a hellish experience, but, rather, an experience akin to walking hand and hand with a divine spirit guide who knows the terrain of which no mortal man before him has dwelt; the terrain, not of hell, but of the unconscious human mind-the space which harbors all of the human spirit’s most deeply rooted secrets. Venturing into that very space, I posit, is necessary for the identitarian movement to reach Truth so fundamental as to be undeniable. Only then will the movement attract the masses to spring forth and join the revolution.
For of all the deep and complex history of all the world’s revolutions, this one fact remains simple: there are merely two roads to revolution, one paved with Truth (that great cosmic stuff that only lives within the hearts of truly heroic men), the other paved with lies.
Only Truth may lead to a revolution worth fighting for. Jung, as it just so happens, is a man who was a purveyor of powerful Truth-Truth. He taught that one cannot truly experience being without knowing one’s roots. These roots, Jung propounds, reveal themselves in the unconscious mind through various symbols.
Jung’s subject matter regarding the unconscious mind runs the gambit, but what really sticks out, and where great grains of Truth lie, are within the notions of Anima vs. Animus-or, the inner woman vs. the inner man. The clairvoyant way in which his ideas could serve as a line for line tracing of today’s sociopolitical picture is, to say the least, both startlingly accurate and amusing.
According to Jung, the Animus can manifest in both positive and negative ways, and is the second half of the male vs. female dichotomy of the unconscious mind; this dichotomy plays a direct role in how the Self forms. The focus here will be the Aniums negatively manifesting itself within women. Jung states,
“The male personification of the unconscious in woman -the animus- exhibits both good and bad aspects, as does the anima in man. But the animus does not so often appear in the form of an erotic fantasy or mood [as the anima does in men]; it is more apt to take the form of a hidden ‘sacred’ conviction. When such a conviction is preached with a loud, insistent, masculine voice or imposed on others by means of brutal emotional scenes, the underlying masculinity in a woman is easily recognized. However, even in a woman who is outwardly feminine the animus can be an equally hard, inexorable power. One may suddenly find oneself up against something in a woman that is obstinate, cold, and completely inaccessible.”
To anyone that is even remotely familiar with today’s political landscape, that snippet will seem as if Jung had gone to any number of left-wing protests, observed 21st-century feminists in action, then used them to elucidate his theory on how the animus negatively manifests itself. That, however, is far from the truth. Some of Jung’s theories are over one hundred years old, yet you can see how telling and relevant they are today.
Does the modern feminist not hold her left-wing views on immigration, racism, the evils of banking, and toxic masculinity as that “sacred conviction” that Jung mentioned? Is it not plausible that, indeed, these views have become just as dogmatic and, to the modern feminist, axiomatic as religious views? After all, Man is a religious animal first, and a scientific one by mere conditioning. Religious views, by the way, that for thousands of years were the only sacred beliefs allowed to be held lest ye be burnt at the stake. In a secularized, widely non-religious America, we now see that man has not yet shaken his nature, his religiosity, nor his absolute necessity to hold sacred convictions. Our women are out in the streets bearing their religious bones and calling it protest.
Is it not, also, self-evident that modern feminists, if not all left-leaning women, are indeed taken over by something cold and obstinate? Language of such a ghostly nature may be deemed necessary in the face of such horrors. Many of today’s men have looked upon these women, these bull dikes and green haired freaks( amongst who are some salvageable, intelligent women) , and genuinely asked themselves, “What has gotten into them?” As if a demon had grabbed a hold of these women’s precious, delicate souls they scream and create “brutal emotional scenes”. I posit, gentlemen, that the negative animus has taken hold within the depths of the unconscious mind. The reasons are as follows; Jung continues,
“One of the favorite themes that the animus repeats endlessly in the ruminations of this kind of woman goes like this: ‘The only thing in the world that I want is Love- and he doesn’t love me’; or ‘In this situation there are only two possibilities- and both are equally bad.’ (The animus never believes in exceptions.) One can rarely contradict an animus opinion because it is usually right in a general way; yet it seldom seems to fit the individual situation. It is apt to be an opinion that seems reasonable but beside the point.”
Again, Jung brilliantly posits a notion that seems to be ripped from 21st-century reality.
These women are predominantly, of course, atheist. Therefore they have not found even the most basic form of love all Americans prior to the 1960’s received: The presumed love of Christ given to Christians-protestant or otherwise. So they find themselves in a loveless position that their conservative, more level-headed, female counterparts do not feel mired in. And yet they desire love all the same.
Lest we forget the reality of radical, anti-American, feminist life today, one must mention these women look at the world from a scientific materialist perspective. Thusly they do, as Jung said, find themselves in a “situation where there are only two possibilities and both are equally bad”.
One is that the world is a place where suffering is built into the very foundation of being, humans are subject to both their own natures and to the environment, but cannot be their own slaves, and that forevermore the world will be such a place. There is no God to love them, no God to provide them with guidance, meaning, or purpose.
The other is, more or less, the exact opposite worldview, but still without God; the world is a place of suffering not because it is built into the very foundation of being, but because we have yet to implement the correct society. In this situation humans are all nurture, no nature, and, thus are akin to balls of clay. We can will ourselves to do anything regardless of our natures, and the world is only bad for now (this is obviously the Marxist worldview).
In any estimation, for these women, the fact that both situations acknowledge that the world causes them pain now means that the feminist’s unconscious mind would adopt the notion that “In this situation, there are only two possibilities- and both are equally bad”, thus the unconscious mind identifies with the negative animus.
Finally, Jung goes on to detail not only how the negative animus may appear in dreams-as a handsome stranger- but also what exactly that handsome stranger represents psychologically.
“….he represents a particular form of the animus that lures women away from all contacts with real men. He personifies a cocoon of dreamy thoughts, filled with desire and judgements about how things ‘ought to be,’ which cut a woman off from the reality of life.”
Sometimes in life, the stars align for a moment…a moment so beautiful one cannot help but wonder whether or not there really is a hand guiding us all. This, a time in which reality becomes so clear as to be comical, is one of those moments.
The “real men” that Jung is referring to are you; men who have principles…men who have a sense of tradition, a sense of where they are from, and a sense of who they are. This is the importance of heritage and of history! So that we may know where to go next! For it is only a man that knows where he is from, a man that recognizes the harsh, cold nature of reality, that can lead a woman, swiftly and with steadfast resolve, through the muck of the coldest, darkest winter nights. A real man knows how to navigate through the world because he has a sense of spirit that gives him direction.
Women today are, indeed, “…cut off from the reality of life” as they march in the streets screaming vagueries about “how things ‘ought to be’”. This is where the men of the Alt-Right come in. We have all seen it before. A leftist woman doesn’t want to lay with a cuck, faggot who stands for vague platitudes fed to him by the mainstream. She wants a man who thinks for himself, who stands up tall with his shoulders back, and proudly, amongst the harsh, numbing winds of the political wilderness, stands for something True.
These truths, as we begin to unpack them, may strengthen the conviction of a man not ashamed to be white while simultaneously freeing white women from the chains of the negative animus, thus bringing them back to “the reality of life”. Those tight, constricting chains, it’s sad to say, have been placed on them by the progenitors of a marxist, multiculturalist agenda that seeks to destroy the West. And so the Alt-Right must stand for Truth; Truth so profound as to be undeniable. Only then can we begin to break through to those starving for ideas greater than themselves-ideas that, perhaps, have come from a place no mere mortal can fully ever understand.
Read The Aryan Christ, by Richard Noll.
Or don’t… that book is slander and the author is retarded
I did. 20 years ago.
Jung would certainly not be alt-right. The use of his theories here is very poor and completely out of context. Read civilization in transition or really any other book by him. That should be enough to see that Jung would not be part of such a movement.
Carl G. Jung’s most notable achievement was do develop the dichotomy between introversion and extroversion.
His writing on the archetypes of the collective unconscious is interesting. I think there is some truth there. I also think he overstates his case.
Nonsense designed impress the kids on this site who flunked out of community college
It’s so funny reading the delusions of so many damaged white boys. What’s even funnier is that the population of the world is irreversibly turning brown and all the false Jung comparisons in the world won’t change that. The writing is on the wall. Here’s a tiny violin for you to play Wagner on.
>White Genocide isn’t real
>hahahaha you are going to be exterminated and you can’t do nuffin about it white boi
How are liberals able to think both these things at the same time? Truly amazing.
We are just happy you can read.
Not all of us in the Identitarian movement are christian. Alt Right/Identitarian women do not need “christ’s” love. We need logic & good male leadership.
I pray for you, you blasphemous imp of Satan.
Where do you think logic and good male leadership come from? We are not born with it. I wish we were.
Your political take on the Anima animus issue is a complete perversion of both the concept and application of the theory. These two concepts are meant to be personal. I have been involved with Jung’s writings and students for 46 years. He would be very unpleased with this misuse of his ideas.
the interdependence of the microcosm and macrocosm is an iron law of nature. I think Jung would agree.
I have read and used Junginan concepts for 40 years.
I agree with Tony.
Dr. Kate Brizendine, Ph.D.
Guided Interactive Sand Tray Therapist.
Author of :
Grief Without Words
“Healing Your Grief With Pictures”
Nobody here is impressed by your (((Ph.D.))). Go and shill for your (((art therapy))) practice somewhere else.
The passages quoted are from Jung’s collected works volume 9 part one. I just read it so it is fresh in my mind. The gist here is reasonable but there are much more relevant passages there which makes me think the writer didn’t read this volume himself. Jung will frequently mention how dangerous collectivism is and how the salvation of society is only to come by individuals not groups. Those passages would be a good addition to this article.
Jung made you think, does not mean Jung agrees with you. Jung would never be so afraid of the Other as to crawl back into this delusional bravado of a racist chauvist. Any white woman you convince to join your ranks are made of the same inferior stock – people who can’t compete with immigrants fairly and so resorts to racist politics.
The petty bo-bo class thumbs its nose at you, safe and snug in the belief that they’re cleverer than those disgusting proles. That their degree protects them, that they’ll never have to worry about “competition” because they’re competitive and that they’re the superior caste in our society – and that social darwinism will take care of the rest. They donate a dollar to hungry Africa children in the check out lane of Whole Foods, and they do with a smug smile of their face, as they think of all the racists that they’re spiteing as they hit “donate” and swipe that credit card.
It’s a twisted cult where “bad-Whites” are the devil and salvation only costs a dollar at the register. No hard work or sacrifice required.
>we’re all in this together, Diversity is Strength™
>you’re just butt-hurt because another group is out competing your group.
Why should we have to compete with immigrants that are nothing like us?
This is an appalling distortion of Jung’s ideas and work. It would never, COULD never, pass peer review by authentic and credentialed Jungians.
I got a quarter of the way through this before feeling disgusted. Another pathetic attempt by a MAN to tell women how they think. Who let this garbage WordPress blog level rant publish here?
Face reality Jen. Men, real men, know how women think better than women themselves.
All that huffy fluffy beta male shit you see on tv and in real life where these weaklings claim ” Golly jee, no man can ever truly know how a women’s mind work. Aw shucks.” Is exactly what it sounds like, BullShit. Bullshit peddled by weak males in an attempt to cover up their incompetence.
You are all carbon compies of each other and once you know the blue print, women are easier to figure out then a jigsaw puzzle made for five year olds.
He did a pretty spot on job of categorizing how lefty women think. Don’t let female in-group preference sway you here.
All correct but one should really read Jung and see this is not the only area where he gets it right. Jung was one of those minds that only comes around every few hundred years or so, to be immersed in his works is to behold a thing of incredible acumen and erudition. He was educated in a way that NO ONE in the West is educated today.
One should also check out the Jungian author Anthony Stevens and the Jungian influenced speaker / author Jordan Peterson.
Let me reinforce a point already made on this page:
~Jung was a protege of subversive jew parasite (((Freud))) and should not be taken [at all] seriously.
Jung split from Freud very early, about 1912. His theories are very different than Freud
They had a falling out because Jung refused to reduce everything in man to sexual drives.
Dude, was Spencer not a protege of sorts of Paul Gottfried?
Who better to fight the Sith than one trained in the Dark side of the (((farce)))?
Interesting reading, though one objection:
Of course it is nice to see some quotes, but without the sources the article is incomplete; put in at least the books that you quoted from, as well these you consider his most important writings!
Does anybody have the works?
This article is practically graduate level writing. It’s a sad irony that if you open up a course catalog for a mainstream university that charges a fortune for tuition that you will find ‘ethnic studies’ and dozens of other courses that promote a Marxist worldview with subversive readings, while out here on AR the flame of European civilization is kept burning bright, and you can enjoy it for free.
How does it feel to witness Alt-Right Ideas spreading everywhere and Awakening so many White Minds??
It feels GOOD……..
We’re Social Beings at the Core………..
We’re not Pariahs or Freaks……..
There is NOTHING wrong with us…………
And as our Collective Consciousness Grows………
The Greatest Weapons that our Enemies have Forged against us………
Having read most of Jung’s work in great depth, I can honestly say that I have yet to find one point of serious disagreement. Granted he denounced NS after the war as a matter of survival but so did all thinkers of the time, Junger and Heidegger included.
The man deserves to be among all the great European saints, thinkers, poets, warriors, and statesman.
Read Jung and Freud side by side and that is all you will ever need to know about the difference between Aryans and Jews.
All”great” Jewish psychologists are promoting the protocols of Zion, they aren’t in it to truly have great thoughts but to propagandized for Jewry while knowing all readable literature censors will back them up as they too are all Jewish and for the same thing, a Jewish utopia that makes all goyim, cattle.
This can’t be accomplished if the goyim ever find out what’s going on so their subversion must be well hidden from those who elicit blind trust.
A fair fight is unfair for Jews, in fact, it’s anti-Semitic, the truth has to be hidden and ruling must occur via lies to the ruled!
The alt-right does it’s bit and may get rewarded, hallelujah!
When the author wrote this,
“Women today are, indeed, “…cut off from the reality of life” as they march in the streets screaming vagueries about “how things ‘ought to be’”. ”
it made me think about all the alt-right men out on the streets proclaiming “how things should be” but of course, they are guided by “truth” don’t ya know.
Let me clue you, obsessing about white women living up to your notions of nobility in a woman is good “divide and conquer” for Jews. In fact, I dare say MGTOW was invented by Jews to fight feminism as Republicans were invented by Jews to fight Democrats, all their main purposes to keep the conversation from getting anywhere close to the truth that they are in the process of taking full ownership of you
I hope that doesn’t undo any of your “programming” now that I have told you this
The beginning was reasonable. Though I hope your are excluding Jung form that. He was no Jew, he was Aryan thru and thru. But when you veered into a pro women’s liberation screed you lost me.
I could agree on mgtow but no the rest. Women are not going to play any big role in beating the Jews except for breeding white babies. They are not going to be on any front lines that’s for sure.
Although I detest the terminology, white sharia is what we need. It’s better to just call it Patriarchy though, same as our white ancestors.
Don’t take offense to this Joe but your an older guy and I’m sure you have atleast one daughter. Your generation has been the most indulgent generation of men toward their daughters that has ever existed. I think that skews your view a tad.
Girls and women will be heading back to the kitchen soon. They will fill their natural roles God gave them. Wife and mother or it that fails prostitute or nun. Nothing more.
“White Sharia” is lame. People who promote it are not just talking about traditional gender roles. Their talking about white rape gangs, and fall back on “it’s just a meme, bro” when challenged on the idiocy of their little “meme”.
I know, was just using a little semantics. Figured it would trigger joe a little.
I do believe that we need just about everything short of legal rape and burkas. You know, like are ancestors had. I’m torn as to whether or not they should wear head veils or not as perfect hair really gets my blood going.
Man my grammar is shameful. Need to start proof reading
Jung was a protege of subversive jew parasite (((Freud))) and should not be taken too seriously.
He had a falling out with Freud early on, and was a pretty big Hitler fan. He was a great mind as far as I’m concerned…
“There is no question but that Hitler belongs in the category of the truly mystic medicine man. As somebody commented about him at the last Nürnberg party congress, since the time of Mohammed nothing like it has been seen in this world. His body does not suggest strength. The outstanding characteristic of his physiognomy is its dreamy look. I was especially struck by that when I saw pictures taken of him in the Czechoslovakian crisis; there was in his eyes the look of a seer. This markedly mystic characteristic of Hitler’s is what makes him do things which seem to us illogical, inexplicable, and unreasonable. So you see, Hitler is a medicine man, a spiritual vessel, a demi-deity or, even better, a myth.”
Carl Jung, 1939
His essay on Wotan is definently worth reading…
Heh came to the comment section to post this but you guys beat me to it. Jung understood that man cannot be reduced entirely to materialism.
Wotan as Archetype. Great essay.
He was a great man indeed.
Actually Jung referred to Hitler as an antichrist. Regarding characterizations of Freud’s reductionism as specifically jewish, it is an oversimplification. Jews (as in any culture) have internal dialogues in which various voices including ones which can be characterized as analytic and reductionistic are at the table, but there are other voices on the religious side. There is no correlation between ethnicity and truth over time although at a particular historical moment one ethnicity may appear to be seized in the grip of ideological madness (as were the germans, russians, chinese with nazism, maoism and stalinism). Individuals such as Solzhenitsyn did not follow the herd in spite of their ethnic identity. After all Darwin was Christian and Jordan Peterson characterizes Israeli Erich Neumann as Jung’s greatest disciple… Jesus Christ was Jewish and german Nietzsche was not a Nazi…. I recommend Jordan Peterson’s psych lectures on the subject. Also Jonathan Haidt (who is ethnically jewish and close to Peterson). https://carljungdepthpsychologysite.blog/2017/07/06/dr-jungs-dream-of-hitler-in-1939/
Do you realize that “guilt-by-association” is a fallacy? Richard Spencer had a Jewish mentor; I guess we can’t take him seriously either.
He worked with Freud. That can’t be denied but he also repudiated his work and stated the Freud’s views were incorrect and the product of a Jewish mind.
The only crime he can be charged with is naïveté. Napoleon was naive towards towards Jews at the beginning of his career also( his ignorance being far more costly) yet he absolutely hated Jews after he wised up and admitted that trusting them was a huge mistake.
The same can also be said of Martin Luther.
Do we throw the baby out with the bath water?
Martin Luther was a limited hangout who didn’t like being discarded when he was no longer useful to them
No. Martin Luther was naive up until he learned Hebrew.
Now, his legacy and the reformation in general was atleast in part steered by Jews. Not him