Red Pill Logic: Anima, Animus and Jung

A while back I wrote a post on how our society is engaged in the mass-production of Beta males and female narcissists, in essence creating men weak of will and women with dogged determination. This translates into men that act more female than male, often being submissive, lacking decisiveness and rejecting the very notion that there is such a thing as “male behavior”. Likewise, the women reject the notion that there is such a thing as “unfeminine” behavior, which often manifests in behaviors such as being argumentative, decisive and insistent. This has often been pointed out in the manosphere as a case of attempting to make a sexually dimorphic species into an androgynous one, with which I agree.

In the present social climate I would argue that a misinterpretation of Jung is at fault for the concept of “Get in touch with your feminine side”, where the underlying meaning of the statement is “If you get in touch with your feminine side, you will adopt my perception“. However, this is not the meaning, nor is it the role of the anima and the animus in Jungian psychology. What characterizes and somewhat sets Jung apart is a writing style based on imagery and his use of dichotomies. For those familiar with psychological types, the dichotomous pairs of “Thinking and “Feeling” and “Sensing” and “Intuition” will be familiar, and this is something that characterizes most of his psychological work in “The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious” as well. (If you are interested in learning more about Jung’s psychological types, The Artful Man has a blog dedicated to it that is linked in my sidebar.)

The man is the bearer of logos, represented by rationality, logic and a preference for empiricism, whereas the female represents the concept of eros, the emotional, instinctive and relationship oriented. Thus, this dichotomy in some regard mirrors Jung’s thinking and feeling functions, the former which is more prevalent in men, the latter which is more prevalent in women statistically speaking [7]. However, as explained by many MBTI writers, attempting to turn a thinker into a feeler or vice versa is not a very good idea. Likewise, attempting to turn women into men and men into women, does not create a race of androgynous superhumans, finally free from oppressive social norms and expectations, it creates one group of left-handed people attempting to write with their right hand, and another group of right-handed people attempting to write with their left hand.

Anima and the Red Pill

I view Jung’s psychology as very complimentary to the Red Pill in quite a few regards. The Anima represents the Eros in men, those emotions, instincts and relationship oriented aspects of a man that is frequently secondary to his logos. The role of the Eros in men is to function as weight to balance a man’s logos, so that his reason does not completely dominate his life, and he is able to communicate and form relationships. This is also a central aspect in a red pill transformation, in that many men must learn to understand the female methods of communication.

Men, driven by logos have a strong preference for content over context, for deductive, problem-solving and clear speech, with little attention being paid to things like body language and tone of voice, normally within red pill circles this is referred to as men having a preference for overt communication. Overt communication being those things that are communicated clearly via language, as opposed to those things that are communicated covertly, through body language, voice tone, word choice, and other means that are not directly and openly stated.

This does not mean that a man must adopt the female means of communication, however that he needs to understand them in order to be successful in his relationships with women. The anima in men results from a female imprint on a man, starting with a man’s relationship with his mother, as she is the first representative of eros that he encounters. A significant milestone in a man’s life is the divorce from his mother’s eros imprint of which Jung writes:

He seeks, as it were, the protecting, nourishing, charmed circle of the mother, the condition of the infant released from every care, in which the outside world bends over him and even forces happiness upon him. No wonder the real world vanishes from sight! [3]

Jung rightly points out that if a situation arises where the mother works to hinder the son from becoming a man, in effect constructing a relationship with him that is both that of mother and son, and of husband and wife (not literally speaking). An example of such a relationship can be seen on “The Big Bang Theory” between Howard Walowitz and his mother. Another example would be those sons of single mothers who fill both the role of child and adult for their mothers, and often react with either hyper-masculinity or becoming complete mama’s boys.

The Animus and the Red Pill

As the Anima represents the eros in men, the animus represents the logos in women. This logos is a paternal one and stems from the woman’s father who is the first man that she has a relationship with in childhood. If a woman has a poor animus image, this is frequently referred to as “daddy issues” in common parlance. As the woman’s psyche is more characterized by what Jung describes as “The connective quality of the Eros”, her animus will tend to embody the qualities normally associated with male behavior, such as reason, ambition and decisiveness. Of the female animus Jung writes:

In women, on the other hand, Eros is an expression of their true nature, while their Logos is often only a regrettable accident. It gives rise to misunderstandings and annoying interpretations in the family circle and among friends. This is because it consists of opinions instead of reflections, and by opinions I mean a priori assumptions that lay claim to absolute truth. Such assumptions, as everyone knows, can be extremely irritating. [3] 

Thus, the many qualities that the Red Pill accurately points out as being nurtured in modern women, are those of a woman’s animus, and many of the red pill techniques are methodologies that disarm the female animus and thus returns her from a state where she is motivated by gaining power, a result of her animus to one where she is motivated by her natural eros. However, the misinterpretation of Jung’s writing is what has lead us down an unfortunate path, his writing is in fact a blueprint for avoiding the very situation that Rollo accurately points out in his post:

Whether or not there’s merit to Jung’s ideas, there’s little doubt of the impact they had on fem-centrism. Early feminists saw Jung’s theory as the perfect springboard to further a pretense of ‘gender equality’; thus making individual gender balance (i.e. androgyny) a new idealized goal state. Men simply needed to be perfected by exploring their ‘feared’ feminine natures, and women needed to be allowed the opportunity and freedom to masculinize themselves in order to perfect that androgynous balance. [2] 

A central point to much of Jung’s philosophy is that if you neglect aspects of yourself, you become ruled by them. Naomi Quenk wrote a book on psychological types related to inferior function outburst related to Jung’s psychological types where this is a central point. Jung’s own writing reflects this, especially those on the concept of the shadow, and the need to integrate the shadow personality into the self in order to avoid being possessed by it.

Anima and Animus Possession

The concept of being possessed comes from Jung’s view of a person being a mosaic of sorts of different dichotomous traits, the ego and the shadow, the anima or animus, and various others. This is more expanded than the structure proposed by Freud consisting of the ego, super-ego and ID. I have referred to the idea of a person developing a tendency to either be controlled by his ID or Super-ego, when the ego is not sufficiently developed, and in the same manner, a person who does not familiarize himself with the shadow side of his personality is apt to be possessed by it. This can be observed in people who are otherwise nice, but have a streak of cruelty, in women who are normally submissive and accommodating turning into argumentative battle-axes, or in men who have sudden emotional outbursts. Of this Jung writes:

“Possession caused by the anima or animus presents a different picture. . . . In the state of possession both figures lose their charm and their values; they retain them only when they are turned away from the world, in the introverted state, when they serve as bridges to the unconscious. Turned towards the world, the anima is fickle, capricious, moody, uncontrolled and emotional, sometimes gifted with daemonic intuitions, ruthless, malicious, untruthful, bitchy, double-faced, and mystical. The animus is obstinate, harping on principles, laying down the law, dogmatic, world-reforming, theoretic, word-mongering, argumentative, and domineering. Both alike have bad taste: the anima surrounds herself with inferior people, and the animus lets himself be taken in by second-rate thinking.”[3]

What is this not, if not an apt description of the very situation that we find ourselves in, masculine women and feminized men? What the past 50 years failed to understand, was that if one venerates the anima in men and the animus in women, one is encouraging both to become possessed by their opposite. In imagery if men are black and women white, one can encourage black to become white and white to become black, but the end result will always be grey.

What we have created is a situation in which we encourage woman to become controlled by their animus, thus losing the connection to their eros, and instead becoming argumentative, know-it-alls, obsessed with the material world [4]. Whereas we encourage men to become controlled by their anima, becoming weak, submissive, and unable to take action in the world [5].

Summary and Conclusions

Jung’s central theme in his writings is a balancing act between the various elements that make up consciousness. In “The Archetypes and Collective Unconscious” he encourages us to connect these various archetypes in order that they may not posses us, and thus create unfortunate effects in our lives. An example of a situation where a man needs to have a nurturing quality to him is in fatherhood. This nurturing quality in a man is not the same as the nurturing quality of a woman, but one that enables him to be an effective mentor and leader. Dr. Jekyll and Mr Hyde are examples by author Robert Louis Stevenson of a man being possessed by his shadow, those elements of his personality that he refuses to accept are part of him.

Furthermore, autism researcher Simon Baron-Cohen, the creator of the “Extreme male brain” theory of autism [6], has created two distinct categories for behavior, that he has themed “Systemizing” and “empathizing”. That he defines as follows:

“‘Empathising’is the drive to identify another person’s emotions and thoughts, and to respond to these with an appropriate emotion. Empathising allows you to predict a person’s behaviour, and to care about how others feel.” [6]

“‘Systemising’is the drive to analyse the variables in a system, to derive the underlying rules that govern the behaviour of a system. Systemising also refers to the drive to construct systems. Systemising allows you to predict the behaviour of a system, and to control it.” [6]

While I’m well aware that there is a litany of studies that proponents on both sides of the debate on whether there are biological brain differences in men and women can cite to support their opinion, these definitions appear to support the Jungian concepts of the female Eros and male Logos quite well. The two extreme positions being that there are strict dichotomous categories to which every member fits, and the other extreme position that there are no categories appear to be manifestations of this very systemising or empathising dichotomy, where the Eros favors no categories and the logos favor creating overly encompassing and strict categories.

A society that drives its men towards empathising and its woman towards systemising, is inherently driving its men to become possessed by their anima and its women to become possessed by their animus.  This creates men who overly identify with the feminine condition, and women who overly identify with the masculine condition, to their own detriment. In essence, one is driving the right handed to write with their left, and the left handed to write with their right. As with much human knowledge, the flaw is not in the knowledge, but in flawed interpretations and implementations.

Sources:

[1] https://therationalmale.com/2017/05/17/state-control/

[2] https://therationalmale.com/2012/01/11/the-curse-of-jung/

[3] Archetypes and the Collective Unconcious

[4] https://appliedjung.com/animus-possession/

[5] https://appliedjung.com/anima-possession/

[6] http://cogsci.bme.hu/~ivady/bscs/read/bc.pdf

[7] http://www.statisticbrain.com/myers-briggs-statistics/

Advertisements

14 comments on “Red Pill Logic: Anima, Animus and Jung

  1. Carl, you just lightened up the analytic corner of the manosphere where Rollo was not meant to shine light. Yea, the Anima IS the bridge and you gotta make in conscious for real success with women. Mother Imagos fuck up all kinds of lives and the fear of the omnipotent feminine is immense. Boys stay boys due to psychological castration.

    Stay jung (german for young lol)
    -IJ

    Liked by 1 person

    • Thank you. I agree with Rollo’s analysis in “The Curse of Jung”, in that Jung’s work has largely been used in order to facilitate an ideology that attempts to create a race of androgynous superhumans, and that it continues to be used to destroy both masculinity and femininity.

      Perhaps it is presumptuous of me to think I know how Jung’s mind work, but he appears to have been a combination of analytical thinker with a strong imagination, his archetypes are thus dichotomous manifestations of categories. So when Jung says a man needs to be in touch with his anima, what he means is that a man cannot be pure empiricism and reason, much like a woman cannot be pure emotion, thus she must connect with her animus to gain access to reason.

      Much like the manosphere has said for years, Jung also said that women are inherently governed by emotion, where men are inherently governed by reason. However a woman without any capacity to reason, or a man without any capacity for emotion, is unable to relate to those of the opposing sex. This is why “Beta game” which largely consists of attempting to explain to a woman why she should fuck him through logic never works, but “Alpha game” which is based around almost pure emotional communication works.

      The other premise of Jung’s theory is the conscious and unconscious, where a very fundamental principle is that things that are not concious to you, end up “flaring up” and taking control at inopportune times, and without integration this leaves you both:

      A) Not a complete “self”
      B) Not in control

      However, one should not let the shadow, anima or any other part of the psyche control the ego.

      Liked by 2 people

  2. The possession takes place because of the non-education of the males/ females soul, not because of outward pressure of society. The flaw is the narrative itself that leads to the social circumstances that prevent real nourishment for the boys while growing up (boys working with fathers, boys seeing fathers, boys and nature, boys and pain, boys and initiation, boys and stories etc). This is the real sin, once an adult, almost no or rarely a blessing can take place in the boys psyche. He will remain unaware, non-conscious of the Animas Complex until he dies and a slave to all women.

    Will check out Artful Man!
    -IJ

    Like

  3. Wild Man says:

    Perhaps Empathizing/Systemizing may be better understood as a psychic polarity. Perhaps Jung was implying polarity(s) by way of his central theme ….. by way of his prescription for balancing dichotomous traits. Perhaps the psychic polarity of Empathizing/Systemizing is contingent upon the deeper ontological polarity of the Subjective/Objective. What is the ‘life force’ spark apparent by way of the biological necessity of the recognition of said ontological polarity? Is the recognition of the ontological polarity of Self/Other, upon which the operation of the biological is contingent, actually the ‘life force’ spark in and of itself, or is said recognition just a placeholder concept for a deeper mystery with regards to ‘life force’ spark?

    The ‘polarity’ concept is plenty mysterious. The ‘recognition’ concept is too.

    With regards to studies around the mapping of the operation of real-time brain functioning, I have noticed that, with respect to Intentionality/Anticipatory models, the signal for the ‘intentionaility’ pole is currently still left as unmapped (but recursive biofeedback upon anticipatory systems seems to be either a correlate, a precondition, or a consequence of intentionality), ….. so technically ….. not found as of yet. To be found by way of some sort of yet unrecognized harmonic tuning of waveform function? Or collapse of a wave form function?

    Given that the operation of synthetic empirical procedures upon systems of polarity gives rise to the common meta-element (common to all polarities), of eternal non-resolution of system tendencies towards thermodynamic equilibrium …… well, is this meta-element akin to the elusive signal for intentionality within the above mentioned brain functioning studies? As such perhaps akin to the ‘life force’ spark alluded to in first paragraph above?

    I think it is becoming clearer by the day that an information systems approach is the way forward with respect to finding better answers for these mysterious questions. It is very likely that there is fundamental information embedded within the data all around us that still has not been recognized. We need better models to move forward on extracting such. For instance – what is the model for ‘strong emergence’ (a concept that I think is strongly related to the concept of polarity, particularly the polarity-hallmark of equilibrative-non-resolution parameters)?

    Liked by 1 person

    • The more I think of it, the less I think he was talking about balance in terms of “being equally powerful” and the more I suspect he was talking of relative strength. As we progress in our understanding of AI, and machine intelligence, the more we are likely to arrive at a conclusion that there is an evolutionary convergence of sorts in all types of intelligences that is required in order for that intelligence to be conscious. What makes human’s unique per our present knowledge is our ability to be in both the subjective and objective sphere, whereas other animals on this planet are incapable of viewing themselves as separate from the world around them.

      One can often observe that humans have an inherent preference for either the subjective realm or the objective realm. Those who prefer the former are often those people who appear to have a more connected relationship with the world, whereas the latter are often those who view themselves more as observers than participants.

      Like

  4. Incubus_Rising says:

    Thank you for this insightful post.

    Like

  5. First of all, this is a very great post.

    Secondly, men that know about this phenomenon will try to be more dominant because they basically know how easy it is to dominate men nowadays from reading in the manosphere (which is a very good thing).

    However, you will have to realize how much manipulation women use on a daily basis and that you have to be able to see through their games, otherwise they can prevent you from succeeding because they will feel threatened by your masculinity and send you some sexual workplace harassment, false rape accusations, or her social media white knights to shut your ass up.

    You gotta maneuver carefully around women, men can easily be pushed aside and women will even welcome that as they are tired of beta faggots, but they will start to fight against you should you try to dominate them in a public or even private place.

    MGTOW is the solution to this problem as bad as its reputation is, not being impressed by female seduction, improving yourself and striving for more independence will kill the beta in anyone.

    Or with other words: Start your own business (it’s easy online), focus on self-improvement aka reading the manosphere (like this blog here that gives me a headache because it is very intellectually written), going to the gym and fixing your diet and learning the laws of power, copywriting and marketing to see through the daily manipulation.

    This will be a very good foundation to make anyone a more masculine man.

    Here are bonus tips for everyone that wants a metaphorical golden AK-47 to kill the beta male competition.

    -Get into a fight with someone (verbally or physically) that is ruining your life and win it.
    That could be family, friends, government, boss, co-workers, girlfriends etc.
    You will feel the testosterone and confidence gains immediately, not even a brutal heavy weight lifting workout can compare with that, only sports fighting can.

    -Take Modafinil, It’s discipline in tablet form and I was able to develop a work ethic with it, before that I suffered from depression for 12 years and could not even write 300 words per day.

    -Learn how to make money online, I recommend to learn affiliate marketing and copywriting (or sell your skills!) then creating your own digital products and promote more than you create content.

    -Think about dying every day. I always look at the front of huge trucks that pass me, they could easily kill me. Or I lift extra heavy on modafinil in the gym to feel my heart bursting through my chest telling death that he shall come and get me – after a good amount of time you will be less anxious in general.

    -Read 16 signs that she is a masculine woman to be able to detect how masculine a woman is

    -Talk less and feel a growing respect that people give you, only say important things (Not all the time, you need to have fun too bro!)

    -If you feel that you are emotional and want to react (which will lead to an emotional reaction) take 10 seconds and remember that you are being a feminine bitch for basing your actions on your emotions. Then answer like a man – with logic.

    I should have started to read your blog earlier.

    Best Regards,
    Philip Braselmann

    Liked by 1 person

    • thomasso75 says:

      It’s actually a really decent list of recommendations you have compiled here Philip. And you are so right about. Thanks bro!

      Like

    • This is some really sound, practical advice. While there are various iterations of MGTOW philosophy, of which some are good and some are not, the core benefit of adopting shades of MGTOW, is that your mission should always come first. A lot of men tend to shuffle their lives around in an instant to accommodate a woman within it, less focus on their financial interests, skip going to the gym, stop watching their health, and being productive.

      I have a chapter on this in Gendernomics where I go through the shifts in time utilization that often take place when a man enters a relationship. He stops investing in himself and instead invests in the couple, he starts to consume more time instead of investing it, this compounds to drive down his sexual market value, inevitably resulting in a loss of attraction.

      A man has to build certain things into his life that are non-negotiable, when taken in aggregate these elements form his mission, which is then his priority.

      Like

  6. […] was adopted as a principle throughout the western world, and Carl Jung’s theory of the Anima and Animus was interpreted literally as “men should become more feminine” and “women should […]

    Like

  7. thomasso75 says:

    Great post! Love the linking between hardcore psychological theory and the red pill. Thanks!

    Like

  8. […] recent weeks I’ve written posts on hypo- and hypermasculinity and the role of the anima and animus, what these have in common is that they both deal with reactions to environmental stimuli, often in […]

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s