Dark Mother Divine
Deconstructing Feminism
Deconstructing Feminism
Man has an alibi for any and all evils he commits toward himself and the world - He is born of woman.
And when it comes to women, there’s a lot of ugliness under all the beauty. Although they’ve never been brought to trial over it, many women throughout time have seriously abused both beauty and sexuality.
These truisms cannot be refuted by any Feminist, no matter how irrational and extreme they are. These are hated facts to Feminists, who habitually place blame on men for everything wrong with the world. This tired old device has become so worn that it is finally losing its hold on people's minds. A great many sane people sense that there is something terribly wrong with the accusation, but few bother delving into the matter to identify its weaknesses.
And when it comes to women, there’s a lot of ugliness under all the beauty. Although they’ve never been brought to trial over it, many women throughout time have seriously abused both beauty and sexuality.
These truisms cannot be refuted by any Feminist, no matter how irrational and extreme they are. These are hated facts to Feminists, who habitually place blame on men for everything wrong with the world. This tired old device has become so worn that it is finally losing its hold on people's minds. A great many sane people sense that there is something terribly wrong with the accusation, but few bother delving into the matter to identify its weaknesses.
Everything just isn't enough...
Undertaking such an investigation inevitably means looking into the mother-child relationship and phenomenon of “motherhood.” It demands examining the most taboo subject there is – Matrophobia. It’s a road leading to the nature and influence of the so-called Terrible Mother, the chief source of all human pathology.
Whatever the mother experiences during her pregnancy, for instance, anxiety, physical discomfort, hormonal, bodily, and emotional flux, etc., the unborn child will absorb it as if it were its own– Jon Mill (The Unconscious Abyss)
Basic for his theory of anxiety is Sullivan’s concept of personality as essentially an interpersonal phenomenon, developing out of the relations of the infant with the significant persons in his environment – Rollo May
Once the investigation commences, one quickly uncovers the deep flaws of Feminism and any wholesale accusation of mankind. This is because one is confronted with the criminal history of womankind, a story like no other. One is faced with the reasons why most women have zero interest in their psyches.
...woman seems to have a resistance to revealing her own psychology…her psychology is a mystery not only to the man but to herself, a secret which, by her very nature, she is never tempted to penetrate or to give away – Otto Rank
Women need waste no time pondering their psychology. It's totally unnecessary. Men don't make it an issue, and know nothing about it, so why crimp the action? Let the infatuation with domestic and social pursuits continue. Let the good times roll.
Although generous, unbiased women acknowledge the considerable debt womankind owes to the wits and labor of men, most women never respectfully acknowledge it. Although sane women salute the freedoms enjoyed after the invention of contraception, most women don’t bother honoring men for bestowing this enormous gift upon them. This alone speaks volumes. Think if the shoe was on the other foot. What if men refused to thank women for freeing them from physical and sexual bondage.
The sincere student is soon able to answer the great question, posed by Freud: what is it that women want?
In amazement they’ll learn that most women have no idea what they want, or who they are. For the most part, it’s a case of mystique, a fascinating phenomenon most men know nothing about.
Whatever the mother experiences during her pregnancy, for instance, anxiety, physical discomfort, hormonal, bodily, and emotional flux, etc., the unborn child will absorb it as if it were its own– Jon Mill (The Unconscious Abyss)
Basic for his theory of anxiety is Sullivan’s concept of personality as essentially an interpersonal phenomenon, developing out of the relations of the infant with the significant persons in his environment – Rollo May
Once the investigation commences, one quickly uncovers the deep flaws of Feminism and any wholesale accusation of mankind. This is because one is confronted with the criminal history of womankind, a story like no other. One is faced with the reasons why most women have zero interest in their psyches.
...woman seems to have a resistance to revealing her own psychology…her psychology is a mystery not only to the man but to herself, a secret which, by her very nature, she is never tempted to penetrate or to give away – Otto Rank
Women need waste no time pondering their psychology. It's totally unnecessary. Men don't make it an issue, and know nothing about it, so why crimp the action? Let the infatuation with domestic and social pursuits continue. Let the good times roll.
Although generous, unbiased women acknowledge the considerable debt womankind owes to the wits and labor of men, most women never respectfully acknowledge it. Although sane women salute the freedoms enjoyed after the invention of contraception, most women don’t bother honoring men for bestowing this enormous gift upon them. This alone speaks volumes. Think if the shoe was on the other foot. What if men refused to thank women for freeing them from physical and sexual bondage.
The sincere student is soon able to answer the great question, posed by Freud: what is it that women want?
In amazement they’ll learn that most women have no idea what they want, or who they are. For the most part, it’s a case of mystique, a fascinating phenomenon most men know nothing about.
In the sixties, when Feminists started disseminating their anti-male poison, they seized upon a theme that still gets traction today – Fear of Women.
Many a book has been written expounding the proposition that men harbor a secret dread of women, which accounts for why women are oppressed. But when one questions the theory, and seeks for concrete proofs, they often find little to substantiate it. What “proofs” are offered actually work against the theory's advocates.
No doubt there are Beta-Males who do find women daunting and overpowering. And it’s a surety that infant and adolescent boys often tremble in the presence of their mothers, especially if the latter are terrible in aspect, wielding the threat of castration over them.
In the newer understanding of the castration complex it is not the father’s threats that the child reacts to...the castration complex comes into being solely in confrontation with the mother…It all centers on the fact that the mother monopolizes the child’s world; at first, she is his world. The child cannot survive without her, yet in order to get control of his own powers he has to get free of her – Ernest Becker (Denial of Death)
Classical theory has it that the boy fears castration by father as punishment for his sexual interest in mother. This is not verified by my clinical experience. It is his mother whom he fears…The mother cares for and disciplines the child and it is her attitudes toward excretory function and the genital organs and autoerotic activity that basically determine the child’s fears…It is the rule in my experience for the patient to reveal the mother as the agent of mutilation. Throughout life, the man fears the woman as castrator, not the man - J. C. Rheingold (The Fear of Being a Woman)
The more experienced I become the more I have to recognize with what toxicity the castrating or phallic mother intervenes in the castration complex of men…In therapy, impotence due to fear of the father yields rapidly, but that due to fear of the mother is tenacious - John Leuba (Mere Phallique et Mere Castratrive)
Many a book has been written expounding the proposition that men harbor a secret dread of women, which accounts for why women are oppressed. But when one questions the theory, and seeks for concrete proofs, they often find little to substantiate it. What “proofs” are offered actually work against the theory's advocates.
No doubt there are Beta-Males who do find women daunting and overpowering. And it’s a surety that infant and adolescent boys often tremble in the presence of their mothers, especially if the latter are terrible in aspect, wielding the threat of castration over them.
In the newer understanding of the castration complex it is not the father’s threats that the child reacts to...the castration complex comes into being solely in confrontation with the mother…It all centers on the fact that the mother monopolizes the child’s world; at first, she is his world. The child cannot survive without her, yet in order to get control of his own powers he has to get free of her – Ernest Becker (Denial of Death)
Classical theory has it that the boy fears castration by father as punishment for his sexual interest in mother. This is not verified by my clinical experience. It is his mother whom he fears…The mother cares for and disciplines the child and it is her attitudes toward excretory function and the genital organs and autoerotic activity that basically determine the child’s fears…It is the rule in my experience for the patient to reveal the mother as the agent of mutilation. Throughout life, the man fears the woman as castrator, not the man - J. C. Rheingold (The Fear of Being a Woman)
The more experienced I become the more I have to recognize with what toxicity the castrating or phallic mother intervenes in the castration complex of men…In therapy, impotence due to fear of the father yields rapidly, but that due to fear of the mother is tenacious - John Leuba (Mere Phallique et Mere Castratrive)
But no Alpha-Man skulks around frightened of women. The idea is preposterous. It’s highly vain of women to fall for this fallacy and take it to heart. It does them no credit.
Feminists were bound to latch onto the idea with gusto. Allegedly, it is because women represent in physical form the frightening aspects of the so-called “unconscious.” Why men don’t represent the same mysterious abyssal psyche isn’t explained. It is simply taken as a given that women represent the dangers of “Mother Nature,” and also of the unconscious psyche. Who is prepared to doubt it?
Well, someone should, because it’s nonsense.
Whatever inwardly exists to threaten the ego threatens men and women alike. The unconscious contains only what history put there. That is, the archetypes of the collective unconscious, as Jung brilliantly explained, get there due to the movement of history. They are accretions of the phylogenetic process. They are the sum of all experience through time of all humans, male and female. In which case, the content of the unconscious is mysterious and uncanny to both sexes. If it were otherwise, why were the majority of Freud’s patients women?
This fear, such as it is – like the fear of nature – is also a rational reaction to real dangers. Similarly, any fear one may harbor toward women is rational. It is based on very real dangers posed by women. But, of course, the Feminist vision of womankind does not fault women. They never stand accused of anything. Any and all evil that can be attributed to the fair sex gets there by way of male influence. Women are always victims. End of conversation.
That women are habitually identified with nature is also laughably ridiculous. They are extraordinarily urbanized creatures who care little for the natural world.
Feminists were bound to latch onto the idea with gusto. Allegedly, it is because women represent in physical form the frightening aspects of the so-called “unconscious.” Why men don’t represent the same mysterious abyssal psyche isn’t explained. It is simply taken as a given that women represent the dangers of “Mother Nature,” and also of the unconscious psyche. Who is prepared to doubt it?
Well, someone should, because it’s nonsense.
Whatever inwardly exists to threaten the ego threatens men and women alike. The unconscious contains only what history put there. That is, the archetypes of the collective unconscious, as Jung brilliantly explained, get there due to the movement of history. They are accretions of the phylogenetic process. They are the sum of all experience through time of all humans, male and female. In which case, the content of the unconscious is mysterious and uncanny to both sexes. If it were otherwise, why were the majority of Freud’s patients women?
This fear, such as it is – like the fear of nature – is also a rational reaction to real dangers. Similarly, any fear one may harbor toward women is rational. It is based on very real dangers posed by women. But, of course, the Feminist vision of womankind does not fault women. They never stand accused of anything. Any and all evil that can be attributed to the fair sex gets there by way of male influence. Women are always victims. End of conversation.
That women are habitually identified with nature is also laughably ridiculous. They are extraordinarily urbanized creatures who care little for the natural world.
Actually, when all is said and done, there’s far more evidence proving women’s hatred for men than there is proving man’s fear of woman.
But facts be damned. That men fear women serves female vanity. This is why the screwy theory was eagerly adopted. It demonstrably supports female superiority.
The subtextual message is that women are aligned with mysterious powers. On your faces before the all-powerful ones, those whose consciousness is above that of mere men. Many Feminist writers state this unequivocally.
It is true that in past ages the psyche was conceived of as female. Among some religious sects wisdom is personified in the form of the goddess Sophia. But these are for the most part poetic allusions, not to be taken literally. In fact, both William Blake and Otto Weininger rejected the notion that Spirit is feminine. They warned against the attribution. Believers in Sophia conceded that she is, like the Shekinah, the servant of Spirit rather than its origin. She is not the ”Mother of God” and neither is Mary.
Sane people solve the conundrum by rightly attributing both masculine and feminine characteristics to deity.
It makes no substantial difference whether you call the World Principle male and a father (spirit) or female and a mother (matter). Essentially, we know as little of the one as the other. Since the beginning of the human mind, both were numinous symbols, and their importance lay in their numinosity in their sex or other chance attributes – Carl Jung
Think of the female body. Do men fear or desire it? Why is it different with the female psyche? No! Despite the webs of deception spun by power-hungry women, clearly man stands in awe and wonder of the female, but fear doesn’t play the role Feminists wish it did. The theory proves to be a dead-end.
The greater fear lies not in males, but in women who tremble to the core of their being that one day, if the solar-world of the male fails, they'll find themselves hurtling backward into the stygian lunar abyss of the Terrible Mother. It is this confrontation that the souls of most women fear beyond all things. Consequently, Feminists have found the perfect camouflage for their congental Matrophobia - hatred of men.
A woman's pathological need to flee her Medusan Mother's baneful presence and influence compels her to feel no shame or guilt for the many immoral acts she commits against men. Men aren't important in themselves! They merely serve an important purpose, that of distraction. "I take out my burning hatred on them. Bickering with them, and about them, brings needed relief on a level the suckers know nothing about. Let it remain that way."
If any man, therefore, fears and hates women, it is largely because of the deeds she does and the very real danger she poses to him and his world. There's nothing "irrational" or misogynist about it.
Ironically, modern woman's greatest defence against innate Matrophobia is to disinenuously aggrandize the image and significance of woman in history and life. Nice try Feminists and New Agers. It's fooled countless millions.
But facts be damned. That men fear women serves female vanity. This is why the screwy theory was eagerly adopted. It demonstrably supports female superiority.
The subtextual message is that women are aligned with mysterious powers. On your faces before the all-powerful ones, those whose consciousness is above that of mere men. Many Feminist writers state this unequivocally.
It is true that in past ages the psyche was conceived of as female. Among some religious sects wisdom is personified in the form of the goddess Sophia. But these are for the most part poetic allusions, not to be taken literally. In fact, both William Blake and Otto Weininger rejected the notion that Spirit is feminine. They warned against the attribution. Believers in Sophia conceded that she is, like the Shekinah, the servant of Spirit rather than its origin. She is not the ”Mother of God” and neither is Mary.
Sane people solve the conundrum by rightly attributing both masculine and feminine characteristics to deity.
It makes no substantial difference whether you call the World Principle male and a father (spirit) or female and a mother (matter). Essentially, we know as little of the one as the other. Since the beginning of the human mind, both were numinous symbols, and their importance lay in their numinosity in their sex or other chance attributes – Carl Jung
Think of the female body. Do men fear or desire it? Why is it different with the female psyche? No! Despite the webs of deception spun by power-hungry women, clearly man stands in awe and wonder of the female, but fear doesn’t play the role Feminists wish it did. The theory proves to be a dead-end.
The greater fear lies not in males, but in women who tremble to the core of their being that one day, if the solar-world of the male fails, they'll find themselves hurtling backward into the stygian lunar abyss of the Terrible Mother. It is this confrontation that the souls of most women fear beyond all things. Consequently, Feminists have found the perfect camouflage for their congental Matrophobia - hatred of men.
A woman's pathological need to flee her Medusan Mother's baneful presence and influence compels her to feel no shame or guilt for the many immoral acts she commits against men. Men aren't important in themselves! They merely serve an important purpose, that of distraction. "I take out my burning hatred on them. Bickering with them, and about them, brings needed relief on a level the suckers know nothing about. Let it remain that way."
If any man, therefore, fears and hates women, it is largely because of the deeds she does and the very real danger she poses to him and his world. There's nothing "irrational" or misogynist about it.
Ironically, modern woman's greatest defence against innate Matrophobia is to disinenuously aggrandize the image and significance of woman in history and life. Nice try Feminists and New Agers. It's fooled countless millions.
Many mothers search for reasons to withhold love from a child. If the child irritates and annoys her in any way, she'll retaliate by cutting off love and care. Whatever little attention is extended is given begrudgingly. A Terrible Mother will demand that her "kindness" is paid back by lifelong servitude. If an expected boy turns out to be a girl, a mother may be terribly disappointed. She'll take it out on her unwanted child, who carries her legitimate mother-hate through her life, beating herself up for not loving the unlovable.
Historically, a woman’s first sense of power is experienced during and after childbirth. It’s a power women do not relish losing. All mothers know that their total control over a child's body and mind ends once he or she grows to adulthood. The power-drunk mother must then turn her attention to other victims. Can the whole of mankind be subjugated? It's worth a try. It too must be mothered or nannied.
Powerless women have always used mothering as a channel - narrow but deep - for their own human will to power - Adrienne Rich
Women commit the majority of child homicides in the United States, a greater share of physical child abuse, an equal rate of sibling violence and assaults on the elderly, about a quarter of child sexual abuse, an overwhelming share of the killings of newborns, and a fair preponderance of spousal assaults – Patricia Pearson
The power of the mother…is to give or withhold survival itself - Adrienne Rich
Let it not be forgotten that the mother’s influence on a new-born child determines not only his image of women, but of himself. The person he becomes, going into the world, isn’t of his own construction. He emerges from her body. She is his first environment. He steps from her world into the world. Has he not been drastically shaped by her consciousness and behavior? Why, then, do women not acknowledge their role in shaping the male psyche? Does their evasion not speak volumes?
The child’s first impressions of what it is to be male and female begin with the images generated in his psyche via the influence of his mother.
The French psychologist Jacques Lacan addressed this problem directly, saying that these images, if malignant, become the basis for all future pathology. His ideas were substantiated by British psychologist R. D. Laing and Austrian psychologist Heinz Kohut.
…mother causes schizophrenia by issuing contradictory messages, by pushing away and pulling back at the same time…She further projects her negative self-evaluation unto her child: her inability to accept herself as a women makes her unable to accept masculinity in any man, including her son - Wolfgang Lederer (Fear of Women)
Powerless women have always used mothering as a channel - narrow but deep - for their own human will to power - Adrienne Rich
Women commit the majority of child homicides in the United States, a greater share of physical child abuse, an equal rate of sibling violence and assaults on the elderly, about a quarter of child sexual abuse, an overwhelming share of the killings of newborns, and a fair preponderance of spousal assaults – Patricia Pearson
The power of the mother…is to give or withhold survival itself - Adrienne Rich
Let it not be forgotten that the mother’s influence on a new-born child determines not only his image of women, but of himself. The person he becomes, going into the world, isn’t of his own construction. He emerges from her body. She is his first environment. He steps from her world into the world. Has he not been drastically shaped by her consciousness and behavior? Why, then, do women not acknowledge their role in shaping the male psyche? Does their evasion not speak volumes?
The child’s first impressions of what it is to be male and female begin with the images generated in his psyche via the influence of his mother.
The French psychologist Jacques Lacan addressed this problem directly, saying that these images, if malignant, become the basis for all future pathology. His ideas were substantiated by British psychologist R. D. Laing and Austrian psychologist Heinz Kohut.
…mother causes schizophrenia by issuing contradictory messages, by pushing away and pulling back at the same time…She further projects her negative self-evaluation unto her child: her inability to accept herself as a women makes her unable to accept masculinity in any man, including her son - Wolfgang Lederer (Fear of Women)
Jacques Lacan (1901–1981).
Psyche’s primary activity is fantasy and image-making - Jeffrey C. Miller (The Transcendent Function)
As I mention in Dragon Mother, it is a key attribute of a mother to receive projections from new-born infants. However, the projected self-image is not always held in trust. A terrible mother receives but does not project back a healthy image. In other words, the counter-transferred image, re-embodied by a child, is not necessarily that of his true self. According to Lacan, it is often a distortion. Nevertheless, false as it may be, a child is bound to receive it. He must live into it and align his true self with it. It’s not an image of self, but an image of what his mother wants, needs and expects him to be.
...the mother acts as a mirror for her infant, reflecting back in her responses the child’s being-there...Looking into the mother’s face that is looking back, the infant discovers a sense of its own personal being - Ann Belford Ulanov (Receiving Woman)
The foundation of our capacity to be lies in the initial mother-child relationship - ibid
That which we refer to as masculinity and femininity are, after all, images. They come to us during infancy, courtesy of the mother. If she is unhealthy emotionally, how can these images be wholesome? They cannot be. Lacan states that the image of the self may be a counterfeit. It is then a matter of conforming to something artificial and extraneous. A child must succumb to its mother’s counter-projection. Therefore, if a child enters the world as a mutilated and neurotic being, is he or she to be faulted?
The counterfeit self is condemned to project malignant images onto others. Whatever image and impression of females are generated within a child’s psyche – courtesy of mother – inevitably get projected onto women encounters throughout life.
Individual women are then expected to conform to the projections. When they fail to do so, conflicts arise. We say the person isn’t nice or not right for me. But again, the real problem lies in the self-image (self-schema) one carries around. That is the source of conflict, and main cause of meltdown in relationships. After all, how can I be fulfilled by another person if the image they relate to isn’t even the real me? Where did I receive what I take for my identity? When did things go wrong, and how? Few there are who get to work it out.
As I mention in Dragon Mother, it is a key attribute of a mother to receive projections from new-born infants. However, the projected self-image is not always held in trust. A terrible mother receives but does not project back a healthy image. In other words, the counter-transferred image, re-embodied by a child, is not necessarily that of his true self. According to Lacan, it is often a distortion. Nevertheless, false as it may be, a child is bound to receive it. He must live into it and align his true self with it. It’s not an image of self, but an image of what his mother wants, needs and expects him to be.
...the mother acts as a mirror for her infant, reflecting back in her responses the child’s being-there...Looking into the mother’s face that is looking back, the infant discovers a sense of its own personal being - Ann Belford Ulanov (Receiving Woman)
The foundation of our capacity to be lies in the initial mother-child relationship - ibid
That which we refer to as masculinity and femininity are, after all, images. They come to us during infancy, courtesy of the mother. If she is unhealthy emotionally, how can these images be wholesome? They cannot be. Lacan states that the image of the self may be a counterfeit. It is then a matter of conforming to something artificial and extraneous. A child must succumb to its mother’s counter-projection. Therefore, if a child enters the world as a mutilated and neurotic being, is he or she to be faulted?
The counterfeit self is condemned to project malignant images onto others. Whatever image and impression of females are generated within a child’s psyche – courtesy of mother – inevitably get projected onto women encounters throughout life.
Individual women are then expected to conform to the projections. When they fail to do so, conflicts arise. We say the person isn’t nice or not right for me. But again, the real problem lies in the self-image (self-schema) one carries around. That is the source of conflict, and main cause of meltdown in relationships. After all, how can I be fulfilled by another person if the image they relate to isn’t even the real me? Where did I receive what I take for my identity? When did things go wrong, and how? Few there are who get to work it out.
Mother do you think she's dangerous?...
In my studies of adolescents who had an impaired sense of self, I found that many though not all of them had mothers who themselves suffered from an impaired self. The mothers too feared separation, and attempted to prevent it at all costs - James F. Masterson
In addition to Lacan’s perceptive insights into the mother-child dynamic, we also have the fact that a typical mother is threatened by the otherness and difference of her child; that and its inevitable independence. A mother’s feeling of absolute control wanes as a child ages. Eventually, the time comes when she loses her child to the world. This is particularly threatening to the terrible mother, who does not in any way support the sovereignty and independence of her child. A toxic mother may secretly resent and accuse her child of "taking away" her only feelings of authority and control.
Every toddler holds two parallel images of his or her mother: a “good” mother-image made up of the experiences in which the mother provides pleasure, comfort, warmth, affection; and a “bad” mother-image from those experiences in which the mother frustrates the child’s impulses, shows displeasure, punishes, or in fact physically harms the child’s impulses - J. C. Rheingold
For the most part the average "loving" mother is concerned not with her child's actual identity, but with what it feels like being a mother.
Feminists looking into the subject of absolute tyranny need to start here.
…the withdrawing, self-absorbed mothers; the efficient but affectionless mothers; the cruel, persecuting mothers; the anxiously over-solicitous and over-protective mothers; the rigidly controlling, domineering and intrusive mothers; the seductive and castrating mothers; the puritanical and guilt-breeding mothers; the mothers who tyrannize by illness, more often feigned than real; the martyred and dolorous mothers; the schizophrenogenic mothers; ad suicide-fostering mothers; the mothers who do not release a child from symbiosis; the mothers who exploit a child to satisfy their own conscious and unconscious needs, who scapegoat it, or drive it into delinquency…the mothers who vacillate between hostility and remorse - J. C. Rheingold
The toxic mother's attitude toward her offspring is one of hostility and dominance. "You ate of my body in order to live, so you owe me everything...I am right to demand total allegiance and gratitude...You owe me your very being."
In addition to Lacan’s perceptive insights into the mother-child dynamic, we also have the fact that a typical mother is threatened by the otherness and difference of her child; that and its inevitable independence. A mother’s feeling of absolute control wanes as a child ages. Eventually, the time comes when she loses her child to the world. This is particularly threatening to the terrible mother, who does not in any way support the sovereignty and independence of her child. A toxic mother may secretly resent and accuse her child of "taking away" her only feelings of authority and control.
Every toddler holds two parallel images of his or her mother: a “good” mother-image made up of the experiences in which the mother provides pleasure, comfort, warmth, affection; and a “bad” mother-image from those experiences in which the mother frustrates the child’s impulses, shows displeasure, punishes, or in fact physically harms the child’s impulses - J. C. Rheingold
For the most part the average "loving" mother is concerned not with her child's actual identity, but with what it feels like being a mother.
Feminists looking into the subject of absolute tyranny need to start here.
…the withdrawing, self-absorbed mothers; the efficient but affectionless mothers; the cruel, persecuting mothers; the anxiously over-solicitous and over-protective mothers; the rigidly controlling, domineering and intrusive mothers; the seductive and castrating mothers; the puritanical and guilt-breeding mothers; the mothers who tyrannize by illness, more often feigned than real; the martyred and dolorous mothers; the schizophrenogenic mothers; ad suicide-fostering mothers; the mothers who do not release a child from symbiosis; the mothers who exploit a child to satisfy their own conscious and unconscious needs, who scapegoat it, or drive it into delinquency…the mothers who vacillate between hostility and remorse - J. C. Rheingold
The toxic mother's attitude toward her offspring is one of hostility and dominance. "You ate of my body in order to live, so you owe me everything...I am right to demand total allegiance and gratitude...You owe me your very being."
. . .
Feminists also latched onto another promising notion. It amounts to an unwarranted refutation of the theories of Carl Jung. He believed that, psychologically, men and women are mirrors of one another. He espoused the profound theory which holds that the soul of a man is feminine, and conversely that the soul of a woman is, in fact, masculine. He and his students confirmed the intriguing theory of countersexuality by way of thousands of therapeutic sessions.
Swiss psychologist Carl Gustav Jung (1875-1961). When Feminist writers decided to deconstruct his ideas on the female soul, they made a terrible mistake, and showed themselves for the scurrilous degenerates they are. They overlooked that Jung was not just some lone white male European whose work can be put through the ringer and debunked. They forgot the role of the many women in Jung's life, well informed about psychology. These women vetted Jung's ideas and assisted and advised him through the years. They included his wife Emma, mistress Toni Wolff, and colleagues Aniela Jaffe, Maria Louise von Franz, Mary Harding, Jolande Jacobi, Barbara Hannah, Edith McCormick, and others. Indeed, throughout his life most of Jung's closest collaborators and proteges were women. What Jung had to say about the origin and nature of the female soul was and is 100 percent correct. It is contradicted spuriously by self-serving pseudo-intellectuals. To this day his fine body of work continues to be disfigured.
Nevertheless, by the sixties, third- and fourth-wave Feminists started taking exception to the theory. Jung was wrong, they said. The soul of a woman is not masculine. The so-called Animus only serves a woman to come upon her soul or true self. It holds, as it were, a torch by which her own attributes, gifts, holiness and other qualities are revealed. They are certainly not brought to her by any masculine force. She gets to espy her true face by way of the Animus, but doesn’t owe it any particular thanks. In straight language, the masculine is far inferior to the feminine.
Of course this revised vision of the role of Jungian archetypes was not extended to the soul of men. Their soul remains feminine. This is because the basis of all life and consciousness is feminine, or better still female. It is the eternal and everlasting foundation of reality itself. And since the feminine and female are obviously superior, it follows that the masculine must be demoted when it comes to women’s sense of being.
Feminists were elated with the theory. Free at last. External men are considered lower – just rapists at heart – and now the “inner” male could be demoted to the level of page-boy. Once the Animus does its job, it can be on its way. Its services are terminated and it is no longer needed.
Actually, as competent Jungians know, the denigration of the role of any archetype spells disaster. The woman who dares violate the role of her masculine side soon becomes psychologically passive, defenceless, beleaguered, neurotic and disintegrated. She sees herself as being victimized by everything and everyone.
She not only loses interest in men, and cannot realize her full sexual persona, but also loses the ability to tell good men from bad. This explains why so many woke women entertain and even prefer men of low degree. Her inner Animus no longer generates positive, wholesome images and fantasies of men. (Hence the prevalence of rape-fantasies reported by most women.)
She also loses direction socially and professionally. As a docile body she soon seeks refuge in Crowd Consciousness and Consensus Trance. She sacrifices any sense of selfhood on the altar of the mob made up of types just like her.
Of course denying an archetype doesn't end well. It simply forces it to return in an antagonistic guise, to invade the psyche, overwhelming the ego, bringing chaos and madness in its wake.
It is true to say that nowadays most women - particularly woke types - are possessed by a negative Animus. This accounts for why Feminists rigidly believe they speak the "truth" and know all there is to know about everything.
It is because of the subconscious influence of "daemonic" Animus that most women believe themselves to be "second class" citizens. There's no breaking the spell.
Given that the healthy unadulterated Animus leads a woman to the throne room of her Imperial Self, her inner feminine, it follows that the daemonic Animus does the opposite. It leads women to utter ruin, sexually, socially and psychologically.
Of course this revised vision of the role of Jungian archetypes was not extended to the soul of men. Their soul remains feminine. This is because the basis of all life and consciousness is feminine, or better still female. It is the eternal and everlasting foundation of reality itself. And since the feminine and female are obviously superior, it follows that the masculine must be demoted when it comes to women’s sense of being.
Feminists were elated with the theory. Free at last. External men are considered lower – just rapists at heart – and now the “inner” male could be demoted to the level of page-boy. Once the Animus does its job, it can be on its way. Its services are terminated and it is no longer needed.
Actually, as competent Jungians know, the denigration of the role of any archetype spells disaster. The woman who dares violate the role of her masculine side soon becomes psychologically passive, defenceless, beleaguered, neurotic and disintegrated. She sees herself as being victimized by everything and everyone.
She not only loses interest in men, and cannot realize her full sexual persona, but also loses the ability to tell good men from bad. This explains why so many woke women entertain and even prefer men of low degree. Her inner Animus no longer generates positive, wholesome images and fantasies of men. (Hence the prevalence of rape-fantasies reported by most women.)
She also loses direction socially and professionally. As a docile body she soon seeks refuge in Crowd Consciousness and Consensus Trance. She sacrifices any sense of selfhood on the altar of the mob made up of types just like her.
Of course denying an archetype doesn't end well. It simply forces it to return in an antagonistic guise, to invade the psyche, overwhelming the ego, bringing chaos and madness in its wake.
It is true to say that nowadays most women - particularly woke types - are possessed by a negative Animus. This accounts for why Feminists rigidly believe they speak the "truth" and know all there is to know about everything.
It is because of the subconscious influence of "daemonic" Animus that most women believe themselves to be "second class" citizens. There's no breaking the spell.
Given that the healthy unadulterated Animus leads a woman to the throne room of her Imperial Self, her inner feminine, it follows that the daemonic Animus does the opposite. It leads women to utter ruin, sexually, socially and psychologically.
But the travesty doesn’t stop there. Along with this idiotic revision of Jungian precepts came a new definition of the Animus, as it pertains to women’s evil behavior.
Now, degenerate and perverse behavior by women is excused away as being due to the inner “masculine.” Cruelty, anger, aggression, ambitiousness, betrayal and debauchery, etc, are not due to the corrupt soul of a woman. They are due to the sad fact that women are embodiments of Animus or masculine energy. If it weren't for this, all would be well. One day they’ll occupy a society in which they will not need to embody horrid masculine traits. What a utopian paradise it will be – a benefic Gynocracy just around the corner.
In physical life we see this skewed idea at play. The world created by men is there for women’s edification. It’s there as a plaything in which a woman can explore her identity. It does not need one’s gratitude. Woman is, after all, perfect in herself. She is also the giver of all life, which confirms her superiority. It's nice and appropriate that her underlings fashion an interesting world full of cushions, comforts and mirrors, but it’s all rather unnecessary. When the kicks come to an end, and after all the levers have been pulled – yawn – it can be dismantled.
Now, degenerate and perverse behavior by women is excused away as being due to the inner “masculine.” Cruelty, anger, aggression, ambitiousness, betrayal and debauchery, etc, are not due to the corrupt soul of a woman. They are due to the sad fact that women are embodiments of Animus or masculine energy. If it weren't for this, all would be well. One day they’ll occupy a society in which they will not need to embody horrid masculine traits. What a utopian paradise it will be – a benefic Gynocracy just around the corner.
In physical life we see this skewed idea at play. The world created by men is there for women’s edification. It’s there as a plaything in which a woman can explore her identity. It does not need one’s gratitude. Woman is, after all, perfect in herself. She is also the giver of all life, which confirms her superiority. It's nice and appropriate that her underlings fashion an interesting world full of cushions, comforts and mirrors, but it’s all rather unnecessary. When the kicks come to an end, and after all the levers have been pulled – yawn – it can be dismantled.
First, let us glut ourselves on the sensations of the world. But woe-betide the worker-ants should the entertainments suck.
We see from this what devices are employed by Feminists to strengthen their case against men and relevance of the solar world.
Their case falls to pieces when one gets savvy to the way they misrepresent psychosocial and mythic concepts. The feminine principle is presented by Feminists as the spiritual ground of existence, of life and consciousness. To cite the theories of Jungian scholar Erich Neumann, it represents the primal state of uroboric unconsciousness from which all things arise. Okay, fair enough. But this does not in fact mean that it is a superior state of being. All agree that it is a state of non-differentiated unconsciousness, akin to a state of sleep. The true miracle is the impulse of the ego-germ stirring within the abyss and moving upward toward the light of consciousness. What causes this extraordinary vertical ascent? This first ithyphallic emanation is likened to a point within a circle. It is the first shoot rising from the waters of the primordial matrix often styled as a goddess. In psychological terms, it is the masculine principle. Without it reaching up to attain consciousness, nothing about the feminine principle – of the ground of being – would be comprehensible. In fact, there would be no being at all. Why then do Feminists adopt theories exalting the unconscious state? Why exalt the feminine over the masculine when it is by way of the individuating ithyphallic masculine that we are afforded higher states of awareness and cognition? Something is not right here.
Ernst Cassirer has shown how, in all peoples and in all religions, creation appears as the creation of light. Thus the coming of consciousness, manifesting itself as light in contrast to the darkness of the unconscious, is the real “object” of creation mythology - Erich Neumann
Feminist thinking is not in accord with logic and truth. Simply put, everything known about the nature of reality, the cosmos and psyche – the macrocosm and microcosm – comes to us via masculine principles and proclivities. This includes knowledge of the mind’s origins.
Therefore, it is perfectly logical to cite the 1 rather than the 0 as the active and supreme originator of all. To do otherwise is to exalt the unconscious state over the conscious, which makes no sense at all and leads us nowhere.
We see from this what devices are employed by Feminists to strengthen their case against men and relevance of the solar world.
Their case falls to pieces when one gets savvy to the way they misrepresent psychosocial and mythic concepts. The feminine principle is presented by Feminists as the spiritual ground of existence, of life and consciousness. To cite the theories of Jungian scholar Erich Neumann, it represents the primal state of uroboric unconsciousness from which all things arise. Okay, fair enough. But this does not in fact mean that it is a superior state of being. All agree that it is a state of non-differentiated unconsciousness, akin to a state of sleep. The true miracle is the impulse of the ego-germ stirring within the abyss and moving upward toward the light of consciousness. What causes this extraordinary vertical ascent? This first ithyphallic emanation is likened to a point within a circle. It is the first shoot rising from the waters of the primordial matrix often styled as a goddess. In psychological terms, it is the masculine principle. Without it reaching up to attain consciousness, nothing about the feminine principle – of the ground of being – would be comprehensible. In fact, there would be no being at all. Why then do Feminists adopt theories exalting the unconscious state? Why exalt the feminine over the masculine when it is by way of the individuating ithyphallic masculine that we are afforded higher states of awareness and cognition? Something is not right here.
Ernst Cassirer has shown how, in all peoples and in all religions, creation appears as the creation of light. Thus the coming of consciousness, manifesting itself as light in contrast to the darkness of the unconscious, is the real “object” of creation mythology - Erich Neumann
Feminist thinking is not in accord with logic and truth. Simply put, everything known about the nature of reality, the cosmos and psyche – the macrocosm and microcosm – comes to us via masculine principles and proclivities. This includes knowledge of the mind’s origins.
Therefore, it is perfectly logical to cite the 1 rather than the 0 as the active and supreme originator of all. To do otherwise is to exalt the unconscious state over the conscious, which makes no sense at all and leads us nowhere.
Erich Nuemann (1905–1960), wrote one of the most important works on psychology. A colleague of Carl Jung, he took on the job of describing the psychological development of a child from the moment of conception on - from foetus to adult. He describes the original condition in the womb as that of an ego-germ encircled and protected by a uroborous or dragon.
Jung and Neumann were white male Europeans, so obviously their theories are bogus. They can be shredded and put back together in any way pompous Feminist academics want. They owe no debt of gratitude toward any male savant.
Actually, rejecting one hemisphere of consciousness is tantamount to regression. Polarities are necessary and ontological. Mess with one side, and the other is automatically disaffected. We don’t need Freud or Jung to confirm it. It’s a universal law. Look what happens to any psyche that becomes this warped and imbalanced.
Antipathy toward the male externally and masculine polarity within reveals a great deal about female pathology. Absolutizing the feminine principle causes massive imbalance on all levels. Theories of this perverse kind infect goodly women, making them entertain lunatic ideas.
As I show, this rejection is a sign of regression. Throwing out the masculine, or demoting it in significance, leads to a fall into magical child thinking. We see evidence for this all around us today. Compensating for the regressive declination breeds temporary ego-inflation. One attempts to foist order on a collapsing worldview. Hence the craze for grammatical changes in terms of pronouns, etc. It’s based in a subconscious antipathy toward life and reality, particularly toward the solar world of the hero.
It leads to the inevitable over-inflation of the feminine principle.
Any competent Jungian knows how this travesty comes to be. It’s the play of the Anima, the feminine principle, which returns in hostile - or as I call it, in "daemonic" form - to bring a psyche to wreck and ruin. This is the price we pay for precipitating psychic imbalance. In In other words, mess with the Animus and face the wrath of its counterpart, the Anima.
The archetypal structural elements of the psyche are psychic organs upon whose functioning the well-being of the individual depends, and whose injury has disastrous consequences...they are the infallible causes of neurotic and even psychotic disorders, behaving exactly like neglected or maltreated physical organs or organic functional systems - Erich Neumann
Each archetype is something of a trickster, and for good reason. This is particularly true of the Anima. She is the foremost generator of mental images, those determining the self-schema and impressions we have of others.
The Feminist (and Feminized Female) fall under her thrall.
The anima is a symbolic and archetypal figure, being made up of magical, alluring, and dangerously fascinating elements which bring madness as well as wisdom – Erich Neumann
The withdrawal of projections makes the anima what she originally was: an archetypal image which, in its right place, functions to the advantage of the individual. Interposed between the ego and the world, she acts like an ever-changing Shakti, who weaves the veil of Maya and dances the illusion of existence. But, functioning between the ego and the Unconscious, the anima becomes the matrix of all the divine and semi-divine figures, from the pagan goddess to the virgin, from the messenger of the Holy Grail to the saint - Carl Jung
Actually, rejecting one hemisphere of consciousness is tantamount to regression. Polarities are necessary and ontological. Mess with one side, and the other is automatically disaffected. We don’t need Freud or Jung to confirm it. It’s a universal law. Look what happens to any psyche that becomes this warped and imbalanced.
Antipathy toward the male externally and masculine polarity within reveals a great deal about female pathology. Absolutizing the feminine principle causes massive imbalance on all levels. Theories of this perverse kind infect goodly women, making them entertain lunatic ideas.
As I show, this rejection is a sign of regression. Throwing out the masculine, or demoting it in significance, leads to a fall into magical child thinking. We see evidence for this all around us today. Compensating for the regressive declination breeds temporary ego-inflation. One attempts to foist order on a collapsing worldview. Hence the craze for grammatical changes in terms of pronouns, etc. It’s based in a subconscious antipathy toward life and reality, particularly toward the solar world of the hero.
It leads to the inevitable over-inflation of the feminine principle.
Any competent Jungian knows how this travesty comes to be. It’s the play of the Anima, the feminine principle, which returns in hostile - or as I call it, in "daemonic" form - to bring a psyche to wreck and ruin. This is the price we pay for precipitating psychic imbalance. In In other words, mess with the Animus and face the wrath of its counterpart, the Anima.
The archetypal structural elements of the psyche are psychic organs upon whose functioning the well-being of the individual depends, and whose injury has disastrous consequences...they are the infallible causes of neurotic and even psychotic disorders, behaving exactly like neglected or maltreated physical organs or organic functional systems - Erich Neumann
Each archetype is something of a trickster, and for good reason. This is particularly true of the Anima. She is the foremost generator of mental images, those determining the self-schema and impressions we have of others.
The Feminist (and Feminized Female) fall under her thrall.
The anima is a symbolic and archetypal figure, being made up of magical, alluring, and dangerously fascinating elements which bring madness as well as wisdom – Erich Neumann
The withdrawal of projections makes the anima what she originally was: an archetypal image which, in its right place, functions to the advantage of the individual. Interposed between the ego and the world, she acts like an ever-changing Shakti, who weaves the veil of Maya and dances the illusion of existence. But, functioning between the ego and the Unconscious, the anima becomes the matrix of all the divine and semi-divine figures, from the pagan goddess to the virgin, from the messenger of the Holy Grail to the saint - Carl Jung
She throws up all-possessing images and fantasies which seize hold of the Feminist mind. One image is that of the hermaphrodite. It causes one to abjure and relinquish sexual polarities. Hence the breakdown of normal sexual identity and rise of homosexuality and the LBGTQ types.
So much for the beloved feminine principle. Feminists don’t know what dangers they’ve unleashed by way of their perverted ideas and behavior. They cannot see that their enemy isn’t man, but the dark mother divine.
So much for the beloved feminine principle. Feminists don’t know what dangers they’ve unleashed by way of their perverted ideas and behavior. They cannot see that their enemy isn’t man, but the dark mother divine.
. . .
There are other deviant things Feminists stand guilty of. I delineate nine main errors:
First Error: Conflating female and feminine. This is done to inflate the feminine principle over its opposite. Clearly, the two are not identical. Men possess feminine traits, and women possess masculine traits. Masculine and Feminine are typologies transcending gender. Although Feminists hold the primordial condition from which all life emerges is feminine, they fail to address the upward impulse of growth that, striving against the stasis and downward drag of the passive feminine abyss, ascends toward the light, that is the solar world. It is this masculine force that is, in truth, the source of all life.
Second Error: They denigrate the roles and significance of physical men, and follow up by exorcising the masculine from their being. That top feminists toyed with this revisioning of Jung is extremely revealing. Nowadays, feminists settle for an all out deconstruction of gender differences.
Third Error: Ignoring possible and plausible solutions to their own questions about why women have been oppressed.
Fourth Error: Zero interest in the criminal history of womankind, a totally legitimate study. If women’s criminal behavior posed a threat to man in the past, then man’s fear of women, should it exist, is quite rational.
Fifth Error: Convinced that men have had it easy throughout history, Feminists make outrageous claims for rights and opportunities that are not extended to the rest of humanity. “All for us, none for men.” Their entitlement knows no bounds.
Sixth Error: Conceiving themselves infinitely superior because of their child-bearing capacity. Supposed haters of stereotyping, their books are filled with male stereotyping.
Seventh Error: The whole campaign against men and male world is doomed to fail. Women are not about to relinquish any of it, no matter what obsessed Feminists want. It’s woman’s greatest asset and accomplishment.
Eighth Error: Total denial of the problem of Matrophobia (the Electra Complex). Women prefer to evade the matter. They deify their mothers, displace the hatred toward their fathers and men in general. Doing so makes them enemies of truth, and sets up a detrimental internal condition in which archetypes turn antagonistic or “daemonic.” The feminine principle turns against its supposed devotees.
Ninth Error: Awakening and succumbing to atavistic energies and images, which lead to destruction. They possess individuals and groups.
First Error: Conflating female and feminine. This is done to inflate the feminine principle over its opposite. Clearly, the two are not identical. Men possess feminine traits, and women possess masculine traits. Masculine and Feminine are typologies transcending gender. Although Feminists hold the primordial condition from which all life emerges is feminine, they fail to address the upward impulse of growth that, striving against the stasis and downward drag of the passive feminine abyss, ascends toward the light, that is the solar world. It is this masculine force that is, in truth, the source of all life.
Second Error: They denigrate the roles and significance of physical men, and follow up by exorcising the masculine from their being. That top feminists toyed with this revisioning of Jung is extremely revealing. Nowadays, feminists settle for an all out deconstruction of gender differences.
Third Error: Ignoring possible and plausible solutions to their own questions about why women have been oppressed.
Fourth Error: Zero interest in the criminal history of womankind, a totally legitimate study. If women’s criminal behavior posed a threat to man in the past, then man’s fear of women, should it exist, is quite rational.
Fifth Error: Convinced that men have had it easy throughout history, Feminists make outrageous claims for rights and opportunities that are not extended to the rest of humanity. “All for us, none for men.” Their entitlement knows no bounds.
Sixth Error: Conceiving themselves infinitely superior because of their child-bearing capacity. Supposed haters of stereotyping, their books are filled with male stereotyping.
Seventh Error: The whole campaign against men and male world is doomed to fail. Women are not about to relinquish any of it, no matter what obsessed Feminists want. It’s woman’s greatest asset and accomplishment.
Eighth Error: Total denial of the problem of Matrophobia (the Electra Complex). Women prefer to evade the matter. They deify their mothers, displace the hatred toward their fathers and men in general. Doing so makes them enemies of truth, and sets up a detrimental internal condition in which archetypes turn antagonistic or “daemonic.” The feminine principle turns against its supposed devotees.
Ninth Error: Awakening and succumbing to atavistic energies and images, which lead to destruction. They possess individuals and groups.
There are additional duplicities and delusions to be found in modern woke females. What, for instance, do we make of their claim to be “of nature?” Can it be substantiated? Absolutely not. Most western women are 100 percent urbanized, and happy to be so. They are deeply threatened by the natural world. Their interest in it is for the most part aesthetic and recreational. Nature is registered sensationally as pleasing background decoration, little more.
It is also worth citing the woke woman’s inability to see that their bankrupt ideas and antics lead them to perdition. If they seek to free themselves from male projections and expectations, don’t they see that men are liable to follow suit? Will women like it once men shake off their traditional roles? In the real world, whatever we come to dislike about ourselves, is discovered in relationships. Self-realization occurs in relation to others. We find out what we like and dislike about ourselves, as Selves, by way of empathic relationships with others engaged in the same process.
It is also worth citing the woke woman’s inability to see that their bankrupt ideas and antics lead them to perdition. If they seek to free themselves from male projections and expectations, don’t they see that men are liable to follow suit? Will women like it once men shake off their traditional roles? In the real world, whatever we come to dislike about ourselves, is discovered in relationships. Self-realization occurs in relation to others. We find out what we like and dislike about ourselves, as Selves, by way of empathic relationships with others engaged in the same process.
. . .
For Jungians, one of the great mechanisms bringing about conflict in relationships is projection. It is known to Freudians as transference complex. Most Feminists spend time writing about it, but their insights into the matter lack depth.
Speaking primarily to female readers, Feminist authors encourage women to “free themselves” from projections placed upon them by men.
This advice is wrongheaded from the start, and the considerable dangers of doing so are never mentioned.
First, the mechanisms of projection can only be discerned in relationships. Consequently, ducking out of relationships just to avoid projections is not the productive solution it seems.
In short, projections are perfectly natural. They follow from the capacity known as intentionality, the means by which we reach to the world of objects and other people. Empathy is a more common word describing this process. Projections come about through this necessary process of leaning out toward the world. As Hegel explained, the empathic leaning out to others is the chief means of Self-discovery.
Speaking primarily to female readers, Feminist authors encourage women to “free themselves” from projections placed upon them by men.
This advice is wrongheaded from the start, and the considerable dangers of doing so are never mentioned.
First, the mechanisms of projection can only be discerned in relationships. Consequently, ducking out of relationships just to avoid projections is not the productive solution it seems.
In short, projections are perfectly natural. They follow from the capacity known as intentionality, the means by which we reach to the world of objects and other people. Empathy is a more common word describing this process. Projections come about through this necessary process of leaning out toward the world. As Hegel explained, the empathic leaning out to others is the chief means of Self-discovery.
The man or woman who subverts this natural process will eventually self-destruct. One cannot breach the I-Thou exchange without losing their minds. This is axiomatic, so why is it not understood by Feminists? The answer is because they themselves lack empathy. The average Feminist is a pathological personality type: perhaps a hysteric, a depressive, a compulsive or a schizoid.
We all have neurotic syndromes, and probably for good reason. It all originates with the treatment we received at the hands of our mothers. But borderline types and extreme types are the worry today.
Nevertheless, the woke type has nothing to give in relationships. Having no core self, there’s nothing substantial or vital for them to discover about themselves through the mirror of another. Their obsessive desire is to turn everyone else into versions of themselves. It’s been working a treat.
Do woke women not realize that by ducking the projections and expectations of men, they encourage men to do likewise, and slough off the projections of women. Of course Feminists rarely deal with this possibility. Nor do they factor in the consequences to women should men cease be as attentive to female needs.
Given this fact, where do Feminists come off saying “we don’t need men?” According to Jung, seeing imperfections in another is the first step to addressing the same in oneself. It generates a state of health, and conflicts between men and women are allayed when this dynamic is correctly understood. Why then is this crucial fact ignored by Feminists? It speaks volumes. After all, why would anyone bundle up all evil and project it entirely on another? Why deny evil in oneself to this pathological extent? There must be a reason.
When, because of Feminist propaganda and programming, women harden toward men, and fail to offer what the feminine side of man needs, are they servicing the feminine or acting against it? Feminists are loath to accept that men have a feminine side. This fact compromises their entire position. If women have a masculine drive for success – if they are ambitious and competitive – then surely they must grant that men have a feminine side and desire to be accepted, nurtured and loved. What this means is that in effect women by demoting men also demote and deny the feminine. In which case it is they who foster a state of psychic and emotional apartheid. Women fault any man who does not service their feminine side, and lesbians turn to female lovers for this very reason. It appears Feminists have their wires crossed
We all have neurotic syndromes, and probably for good reason. It all originates with the treatment we received at the hands of our mothers. But borderline types and extreme types are the worry today.
Nevertheless, the woke type has nothing to give in relationships. Having no core self, there’s nothing substantial or vital for them to discover about themselves through the mirror of another. Their obsessive desire is to turn everyone else into versions of themselves. It’s been working a treat.
Do woke women not realize that by ducking the projections and expectations of men, they encourage men to do likewise, and slough off the projections of women. Of course Feminists rarely deal with this possibility. Nor do they factor in the consequences to women should men cease be as attentive to female needs.
Given this fact, where do Feminists come off saying “we don’t need men?” According to Jung, seeing imperfections in another is the first step to addressing the same in oneself. It generates a state of health, and conflicts between men and women are allayed when this dynamic is correctly understood. Why then is this crucial fact ignored by Feminists? It speaks volumes. After all, why would anyone bundle up all evil and project it entirely on another? Why deny evil in oneself to this pathological extent? There must be a reason.
When, because of Feminist propaganda and programming, women harden toward men, and fail to offer what the feminine side of man needs, are they servicing the feminine or acting against it? Feminists are loath to accept that men have a feminine side. This fact compromises their entire position. If women have a masculine drive for success – if they are ambitious and competitive – then surely they must grant that men have a feminine side and desire to be accepted, nurtured and loved. What this means is that in effect women by demoting men also demote and deny the feminine. In which case it is they who foster a state of psychic and emotional apartheid. Women fault any man who does not service their feminine side, and lesbians turn to female lovers for this very reason. It appears Feminists have their wires crossed
. . .
But let’s again take up the problem of projection. As said, it is cited by Feminists as a major danger in relationships. Women are to rebuff the projections and expectations of men. They need not succumb to the male will, and become lovers, wives and mothers. They must free themselves from such roles, and reject the men who would “force” them to be what they are not.
It all sounds good on paper. As said, they must consider the reaction of men to it all. They may not like it when men stop acting like eunuchs, bell-boys and worker-ants.
It all sounds good on paper. As said, they must consider the reaction of men to it all. They may not like it when men stop acting like eunuchs, bell-boys and worker-ants.
Escaping projections is no easy task. In fact, there isn’t much credence to the premise. As both Hegel and Buber emphasized, coming upon one’s own identity occurs by way of relationships. Even on a primitive Master-Slave level, identity is uncovered.
Projection not only stands as evidence for the existence and function of the so-called “unconscious,” it is also at play when I turn to others in order to learn about myself. We often enjoy questioning acquaintances about how they “see” us. It’s all for the good. We’re using others as mirrors. The process depends upon empathy and builds empathy so civilization can proceed along healthy productive lines. Those who wish to undermine civilization are against empathic relations. I think we can identify these necrophilous types easily enough.
The vital fact is that all projections are reciprocal. No one sex is free of them, and none can claim to be. The advice of Feminists is, therefore, largely inconsequential. The taking back of projections can lead to a total collapse of empathic connectivity.
As Jung knew, projections are really images, and I’ve already mentioned where the images in our heads come from. Indeed, our very self-schema is largely the product of our mother’s psyche; a fact not of interest to Feminists.
The danger of which psychologists warn comes about when and if projected images tend to take the place of the real. This occurs because both men and women seek to mentally control the reality experienced. The real must conform to our preferred picture or image of it. This is the case even if our picture is utterly irrational and perverse.
To paraphrase writer Anais Nin, we see reality not as it is, but as we wish it to be.
This state of affairs changes only when we truly value reality, and let it be as it is. Likewise, on the human front, projections cease naturally only when the other person is valued as a Self. The Master versus Slave dynamic evolves into the healthier I-Thou relationship. The other person is endowed with Thou-ness only after I myself rise to the level of authentic I-ness, in the truest most robust sense. If I do not make the grade, I remain an “it” and am not capable of endowing the other with Thou-ness. Most human relationships remain on the It-It level. It suits most people, and certainly suits woke types. It’s their preferred state of consciousness.
Projection not only stands as evidence for the existence and function of the so-called “unconscious,” it is also at play when I turn to others in order to learn about myself. We often enjoy questioning acquaintances about how they “see” us. It’s all for the good. We’re using others as mirrors. The process depends upon empathy and builds empathy so civilization can proceed along healthy productive lines. Those who wish to undermine civilization are against empathic relations. I think we can identify these necrophilous types easily enough.
The vital fact is that all projections are reciprocal. No one sex is free of them, and none can claim to be. The advice of Feminists is, therefore, largely inconsequential. The taking back of projections can lead to a total collapse of empathic connectivity.
As Jung knew, projections are really images, and I’ve already mentioned where the images in our heads come from. Indeed, our very self-schema is largely the product of our mother’s psyche; a fact not of interest to Feminists.
The danger of which psychologists warn comes about when and if projected images tend to take the place of the real. This occurs because both men and women seek to mentally control the reality experienced. The real must conform to our preferred picture or image of it. This is the case even if our picture is utterly irrational and perverse.
To paraphrase writer Anais Nin, we see reality not as it is, but as we wish it to be.
This state of affairs changes only when we truly value reality, and let it be as it is. Likewise, on the human front, projections cease naturally only when the other person is valued as a Self. The Master versus Slave dynamic evolves into the healthier I-Thou relationship. The other person is endowed with Thou-ness only after I myself rise to the level of authentic I-ness, in the truest most robust sense. If I do not make the grade, I remain an “it” and am not capable of endowing the other with Thou-ness. Most human relationships remain on the It-It level. It suits most people, and certainly suits woke types. It’s their preferred state of consciousness.
In any case, the fact is that, despite the downsides, projection is a necessary phenomenon. Everyone does it and no one sex can say they are better off without it. It is the key mechanism in the search for Selfhood. Only selfless people have no need of it.
Cancelling projections occurs for one simple reason, not acknowledged by Feminists – to avoid suffering. Beta-types cannot stomach pain and design their lives to evade suffering. Hence the configuration of urban environments. Women are particularly antithetical to suffering. This is why they support Political Correctness and concepts such as Equity. They are always being "offended" and "triggered" by horrid reality and are in total support of the “Cancel Culture.”
…in our society it is not those who suffer that are weak but those who fear suffering – Arno Gruen
…consciousness arises only at the point of discomfort. Just as, in common parlance, “necessity is the mother of invention,” so conflict might be called the mother of awareness. When all goes well for us, we swim with the current; it is only when things do not go well that we become aware of the conditions of our lives and arouse ourselves to play an active role in regard to our own fate. This is one reason why war produces such rapid advances in many spheres of activity – Mary Harding (Psychic Energy)
Equity, the new buzzword, is simply a cover for the descent to the It-It relationship that replaces the higher I-Thou dynamic. The latter causes too much anxiety. Schizoid and hysterical types are incapable of mustering the will and fortitude to undergo periods of intense suffering. This is the path of Alpha types who win their stripes by enduring suffering to rise again. Accepting and overcoming great emotional challenges defines who they are. They do not want to live in a world customized by Betas to banish suffering.
The purpose of the false self is not adaptive but defensive; it protects against painful feelings…the false self does not set out to master reality but to avoid painful feelings, a goal it achieves at the cost of mastering reality - James F. Masterson (Search for the Real Self)
Given these points, we see that the case for avoiding “projections” holds little weight. In fact, it is a recipe for disaster. It’s the path taken by one who is already highly regressed. It marks the trajectory of non-differentiated types heading back to the pre-Oedipal lunar swamp. (See Dragon Mother, for more on this…)
Images need energy to emerge and crystallize. The projection of images also takes considerable reserves of life-force. When and if projections reduce or cease, we find ourselves strangely energized. There is, however, a dark side to this. Projections may be retracted simply to increase energy reserves, which in turn occurs because we feel libidinously depleted.
Today’s Feminist encourages women to dodge male projections and cease projecting onto men. Why? Is it really to gain a measure of freedom? Or is it to fill empty fuel tanks? If women’s play in the world of men is becoming boring, and if women inwardly feel empty – as rates of over-eating and obesity suggest – then it may be that the cessation of projection has become necessary for survival.
Of course, it is only a temporary solution, leading eventually to schizoid breakdown. Recoiling from human engagement, and regressing to the pre-Oedipal stage is not the way to conserve or build-up life-force.
Cancelling projections occurs for one simple reason, not acknowledged by Feminists – to avoid suffering. Beta-types cannot stomach pain and design their lives to evade suffering. Hence the configuration of urban environments. Women are particularly antithetical to suffering. This is why they support Political Correctness and concepts such as Equity. They are always being "offended" and "triggered" by horrid reality and are in total support of the “Cancel Culture.”
…in our society it is not those who suffer that are weak but those who fear suffering – Arno Gruen
…consciousness arises only at the point of discomfort. Just as, in common parlance, “necessity is the mother of invention,” so conflict might be called the mother of awareness. When all goes well for us, we swim with the current; it is only when things do not go well that we become aware of the conditions of our lives and arouse ourselves to play an active role in regard to our own fate. This is one reason why war produces such rapid advances in many spheres of activity – Mary Harding (Psychic Energy)
Equity, the new buzzword, is simply a cover for the descent to the It-It relationship that replaces the higher I-Thou dynamic. The latter causes too much anxiety. Schizoid and hysterical types are incapable of mustering the will and fortitude to undergo periods of intense suffering. This is the path of Alpha types who win their stripes by enduring suffering to rise again. Accepting and overcoming great emotional challenges defines who they are. They do not want to live in a world customized by Betas to banish suffering.
The purpose of the false self is not adaptive but defensive; it protects against painful feelings…the false self does not set out to master reality but to avoid painful feelings, a goal it achieves at the cost of mastering reality - James F. Masterson (Search for the Real Self)
Given these points, we see that the case for avoiding “projections” holds little weight. In fact, it is a recipe for disaster. It’s the path taken by one who is already highly regressed. It marks the trajectory of non-differentiated types heading back to the pre-Oedipal lunar swamp. (See Dragon Mother, for more on this…)
Images need energy to emerge and crystallize. The projection of images also takes considerable reserves of life-force. When and if projections reduce or cease, we find ourselves strangely energized. There is, however, a dark side to this. Projections may be retracted simply to increase energy reserves, which in turn occurs because we feel libidinously depleted.
Today’s Feminist encourages women to dodge male projections and cease projecting onto men. Why? Is it really to gain a measure of freedom? Or is it to fill empty fuel tanks? If women’s play in the world of men is becoming boring, and if women inwardly feel empty – as rates of over-eating and obesity suggest – then it may be that the cessation of projection has become necessary for survival.
Of course, it is only a temporary solution, leading eventually to schizoid breakdown. Recoiling from human engagement, and regressing to the pre-Oedipal stage is not the way to conserve or build-up life-force.
More and more modern women recoil from intimate relationships. Even those involved with men often suddenly break away citing the need for "me time." Translated correctly, it means she is running out of empathy. Despite convincing protestations, she has no intention of being alone, and will be found partying and whoring seven days a week. Hysterical types in particular have no genuine empathy or sincerity, and nothing to give in relationships. That is why their relationships are fleeting and superficial. Their lives are a total pretence.
Crucially, ardent Feminists must explain what good comes of it when men and women discover their identities only by critiquing what it is they don’t like or want to be? It’s clearly not a holistic way to develop identity. This is what the Women’s Movement has done. Rebuffing the projections and expectations of men sounds good on paper. That does not mean it ultimately leads to anything concrete and wholesome. Those who do this obsessively and compulsively have no core self to actualize. It’s all a façade; a lot of sturm und drang to distract one from the truth. Hysterical rebuttals don’t make it less true.
And again, the images of man and woman projected onto the world are first conjured during the earliest stages of the mother-child relationship, forming during the Semiotic stage.
An infant’s sense of self is also generated at this point. Tragically, it may not be authentic. In such a case, the infant inherits a colossal internal struggle. Cognitive mechanisms, such as the superego, take birth to moderate the conflict and bring some kind of resolution. But the counterfeit identity soon gives rise to a cocktail of neurotic and psychotic traits that plague one for a lifetime. They also mar one’s relationships.
The mother-child relationship should be the focus of Feminists. Let them turn their critiques to the role of the mother in this regard.
It is for them to show that the adult mother is the repository of the entire historical archive of images. Her lack of knowledge about this is a definite handicap to her offspring. In short, she is the conveyer of symbols to the consciousness of her child. She determines her child’s receptivity to that which lies within the depths of the psyche. She either facilitates or perverts her child’s relationship with both external and internal worlds. Does she accept blame if and when it all goes hideously wrong? Does she accept responsibility, or place blame elsewhere? Look around and the answer is obvious. Are we then to allow amoral women to take the helm of society and the many orgs within it?
…it is through its mother, who is Self, society and world in one, that the child first experiences order, limitation, affirmation and negation – Erich Neuman
And again, the images of man and woman projected onto the world are first conjured during the earliest stages of the mother-child relationship, forming during the Semiotic stage.
An infant’s sense of self is also generated at this point. Tragically, it may not be authentic. In such a case, the infant inherits a colossal internal struggle. Cognitive mechanisms, such as the superego, take birth to moderate the conflict and bring some kind of resolution. But the counterfeit identity soon gives rise to a cocktail of neurotic and psychotic traits that plague one for a lifetime. They also mar one’s relationships.
The mother-child relationship should be the focus of Feminists. Let them turn their critiques to the role of the mother in this regard.
It is for them to show that the adult mother is the repository of the entire historical archive of images. Her lack of knowledge about this is a definite handicap to her offspring. In short, she is the conveyer of symbols to the consciousness of her child. She determines her child’s receptivity to that which lies within the depths of the psyche. She either facilitates or perverts her child’s relationship with both external and internal worlds. Does she accept blame if and when it all goes hideously wrong? Does she accept responsibility, or place blame elsewhere? Look around and the answer is obvious. Are we then to allow amoral women to take the helm of society and the many orgs within it?
…it is through its mother, who is Self, society and world in one, that the child first experiences order, limitation, affirmation and negation – Erich Neuman
We see from this that key arguments purveyed by highly-intellectual Feminists don’t hold much water. Tragically, ideas such as these are still trending in academic circles, poisoning the attitudes of women who come into contact with them.
Ironically, back of it all is the Feminine Principle. It is by way of the Anima, in its trickster mode – acting in antagonistic or daemonic form – that the psyche of woman is brought to the brink of psychosis and destruction.
The Anima takes exception to attacks on her counterpart, the Animus. Given the compensatory nature of the psyche, one archetype can come to the aid of another, should it be abused. This is certainly the modern predicament. The Anima throws up many a haunting image within the minds of women, leading them Pied-Piper like to their doom. Not one in many millions of highly educated women know anything about it. How does one let them know that their true enemy isn’t man, but the dark mother divine they’ve so egregiously defiled?
Ironically, back of it all is the Feminine Principle. It is by way of the Anima, in its trickster mode – acting in antagonistic or daemonic form – that the psyche of woman is brought to the brink of psychosis and destruction.
The Anima takes exception to attacks on her counterpart, the Animus. Given the compensatory nature of the psyche, one archetype can come to the aid of another, should it be abused. This is certainly the modern predicament. The Anima throws up many a haunting image within the minds of women, leading them Pied-Piper like to their doom. Not one in many millions of highly educated women know anything about it. How does one let them know that their true enemy isn’t man, but the dark mother divine they’ve so egregiously defiled?
. . .
“I feel like I’m dying, powerless and sinking under five thousand pounds of self-hate. I feel like a rotten tree with total despair inside. Hopeless, drained, no strength, I can’t do anything. I am wounded and hurt as though I’m being squashed, and there’s no way out. My own emptiness frightens me. If hemlock were sitting here, I’d drink it” - (Statement of patient Jane)
The schizoid personality type is like a person lost in a great sprawling city, unable to tell where they are. With no Eiffel Tower looming large in front of them, they have no way of telling that they are in Paris.
"When I sit there trying to work, I feel hurt, stepped-on, crushed and want to give up. I never feel any support or connection with anyone. I’m completely lost, helpless, unable to cope with reality. I feel adrift, alone. I have no sense of worth or meaning. The feeling of being deserted kills me, and I can’t work…I can almost hear voices telling me it’s wrong to be myself. I have to block them out, or I think I’m dying. So I give up" - (Bill)
A person in this dire condition compensates for their lack of internal coordinates by identifying with some rigid ideology or cause. The ideas in their heads must also, by definition, be calcified and adamantine. There is no fluidity or spontaneity, no concern about anything compromising their fragile security. Anger, resentment and hatred are the customary reactions to any existential threat looming before them.
…in order to sustain his creed, contemporary man pays the price in a remarkable lack of introspection. He is blind to the fact that, with all his rationality and efficiency, he is possessed by “powers” that are beyond his control. His gods and demons have not disappeared at all; they have merely got new names. They keep him on the run with restlessness, vague apprehensions, psychological complications, and insatiable needs for pills, alcohol, tobacco, and above all, a large array of neuroses - Carl Jung
Socially, each pathological type -schizoid, hysterical, depressive and compulsive - eagerly becomes members of the Crowd, which provides needed security and direction in the wilderness. Each type seeks to violently escape themselves. This is because Selfhood is a major cause of anxiety. It demands too much effort. Getting away from oneself, as a Self, is always a violent act - an act of Self-murder.
As he put it, he would always look at things from other people’s point of view, rather than his own, then wonder why he didn’t feel that he was ever expressing his real self "- (Ted)
The schizoid personality type is like a person lost in a great sprawling city, unable to tell where they are. With no Eiffel Tower looming large in front of them, they have no way of telling that they are in Paris.
"When I sit there trying to work, I feel hurt, stepped-on, crushed and want to give up. I never feel any support or connection with anyone. I’m completely lost, helpless, unable to cope with reality. I feel adrift, alone. I have no sense of worth or meaning. The feeling of being deserted kills me, and I can’t work…I can almost hear voices telling me it’s wrong to be myself. I have to block them out, or I think I’m dying. So I give up" - (Bill)
A person in this dire condition compensates for their lack of internal coordinates by identifying with some rigid ideology or cause. The ideas in their heads must also, by definition, be calcified and adamantine. There is no fluidity or spontaneity, no concern about anything compromising their fragile security. Anger, resentment and hatred are the customary reactions to any existential threat looming before them.
…in order to sustain his creed, contemporary man pays the price in a remarkable lack of introspection. He is blind to the fact that, with all his rationality and efficiency, he is possessed by “powers” that are beyond his control. His gods and demons have not disappeared at all; they have merely got new names. They keep him on the run with restlessness, vague apprehensions, psychological complications, and insatiable needs for pills, alcohol, tobacco, and above all, a large array of neuroses - Carl Jung
Socially, each pathological type -schizoid, hysterical, depressive and compulsive - eagerly becomes members of the Crowd, which provides needed security and direction in the wilderness. Each type seeks to violently escape themselves. This is because Selfhood is a major cause of anxiety. It demands too much effort. Getting away from oneself, as a Self, is always a violent act - an act of Self-murder.
As he put it, he would always look at things from other people’s point of view, rather than his own, then wonder why he didn’t feel that he was ever expressing his real self "- (Ted)
Members of the Crowd tend to be either hysterics, schizoids, depressives or compulsives. Some are inclined to flock to the amorphous Crowd to lower anxiety and fill the void within. This is especially true of hysterics. The oft-cited causes are immaterial. All that matters is that the normally insignificant, unloved, existentially-lost person is "seen." Their crushing sense of irrelevance is temporarily assuaged. The Crowd takes the place of the family. Maybe the unwanted can find the love and recognition they crave. It's well-known that when a child cannot get love, it settles for attention. This type cannot function in society without self-deception. Their loud demands for social reform disguise their complete disinterest in the world. Their howls for the rights of "minorities," etc, hide the fact that they have no interest whatsoever in other people. Their insincere protestations focus on the rights and needs of groups, never individuals. This is because they have lost all trace of individuality in themselves. In extreme cases, when anxiety levels rise, the extroverted psychotic type loses themselves in the mass. Although there is no legitimate empathy toward the Crowd, it is subconsciously regarded as a lover, replacing intimacy that can never be realized in one-to-one engagements. Contra their glowing self-images, members of the Thugocracy are very violent people. Their pretences of being tolerant, accepting, non-violent, caring, sensitive and positive, covers their intense underlying aggressiveness and hatred, principally toward themselves..
Women provided major Nazi support. George Orwell in 1984 noted this curiosity when it came to women and collectivism. “It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers-out of unorthodoxy”...Women in the United States today are a major voter group when it comes to supporting socialist programs and movements – Charles Sasser (Crushing the Collective)
Whatever jive the Thugocracy believes is hungrily devoured. Reason and logic be damned. The voice of the Crowd is not the voice of an individual, and this suits the schizoid type who finds intimate relationships extremely threatening. They much prefer interacting with groups. No need for real intimacy and heartfelt confession.
Also, outer-directed schizoid types are free to rebuke and condemn any fellow member of the Crowd who affronts them. Since there is no need for intimacy, one can pillory or sacrifice a “comrade” at the drop of a hat. It’s a problem plaguing collectivized groups.
"I dislike the idea of being responsible and taking care of myself…I’m an empty personality. I’d rather be an extension of someone else. I’ve always structured my life for someone else to do it for me" - (Penny)
Hence the surfeit of collectives today. Hence the gangland mentality, online bullying, fascistic censorship and snitching. There are no truly human ties to bind members of the Thugocracy. It’s the callous rule of the hive, in which the individual has no inherent value or importance. And that’s fine by the schizoid type. He can lower his anxiety and just about function. His preferred mode of existence is, however, that of a cyborg and simulation. His thinking and behavior is forced, artificial and deranged. He is a mutilated being fashioning the world in his worthless image.
The good news is that, although his world is putrid and false from top to bottom, he never lets it interfere with his smile.
Whatever jive the Thugocracy believes is hungrily devoured. Reason and logic be damned. The voice of the Crowd is not the voice of an individual, and this suits the schizoid type who finds intimate relationships extremely threatening. They much prefer interacting with groups. No need for real intimacy and heartfelt confession.
Also, outer-directed schizoid types are free to rebuke and condemn any fellow member of the Crowd who affronts them. Since there is no need for intimacy, one can pillory or sacrifice a “comrade” at the drop of a hat. It’s a problem plaguing collectivized groups.
"I dislike the idea of being responsible and taking care of myself…I’m an empty personality. I’d rather be an extension of someone else. I’ve always structured my life for someone else to do it for me" - (Penny)
Hence the surfeit of collectives today. Hence the gangland mentality, online bullying, fascistic censorship and snitching. There are no truly human ties to bind members of the Thugocracy. It’s the callous rule of the hive, in which the individual has no inherent value or importance. And that’s fine by the schizoid type. He can lower his anxiety and just about function. His preferred mode of existence is, however, that of a cyborg and simulation. His thinking and behavior is forced, artificial and deranged. He is a mutilated being fashioning the world in his worthless image.
The good news is that, although his world is putrid and false from top to bottom, he never lets it interfere with his smile.
…pathological lack of appetite (anorexia nervosa), has been found in subjects in whom there were intense frustrated wishes for love and attention from the mother which led to hostility toward the mother and consequent guilt because of the hostile feelings – Rollo May
Ultimately, once we trace pathology to the existence and influence of the Terrible Mother, we solve a lot of mysteries. A girl’s search for identity is sure to be drastically compromised by her matrophobia, and so it goes for a boy. Yet this subject receives no attention.
If a boy hardens his masculinity in an effort to reject feminine traits, it can be directly due to his malignant mother’s influence. Consequently, there’s no need to place the blame on him for his desire to find a refuge from tyranny. If a girl grows to denigrate men because this is easier than facing her terrible mother, she too bears no blame. The sin lies elsewhere.
Ultimately, once we trace pathology to the existence and influence of the Terrible Mother, we solve a lot of mysteries. A girl’s search for identity is sure to be drastically compromised by her matrophobia, and so it goes for a boy. Yet this subject receives no attention.
If a boy hardens his masculinity in an effort to reject feminine traits, it can be directly due to his malignant mother’s influence. Consequently, there’s no need to place the blame on him for his desire to find a refuge from tyranny. If a girl grows to denigrate men because this is easier than facing her terrible mother, she too bears no blame. The sin lies elsewhere.
