I absolutely loved this post. Very empowering. I just got down my old copy of Jean Shinoda’s “Goddesses in Everywoman”. I had forgotten how strengthening studying mythology and archetypes could be. Thank you for reminding of that.
William! I just posted this link and one from your Late Thoughts in Winter in a reply to Mara on my last episode. She's also talking about the Jungian shadow, and I had your episode saved as a draft for a future post.
I appreciate being able to continue the conversation as an exploration of things we're both trying to understand. I hope that my comments are seen in that light.
You write, "It is fashionable these days to think that a concept so “toxic masculine” as a king could only have come from Western culture, aka white supremacy." But then you show that the concept of supremacy isn't exclusive to whites. Does that make it not toxic? In trying to differentiate between tonic, I've been asking myself what toxic really means. What's the poison that tonic heals? I think it's the concept of supremacy, superiority, domination, competition.
I wondered if 'archetype' had a common root to archon, the Greek word for rulers that hierarchy derives from. The Merriam-Webster says: Archetype comes from the Greek verb archein ("to begin" or "to rule") and the noun typos ("type"). So it's the firstborn, in primogeniture, to whom the right to rule was passed down.
I've stopped using the term matriarchy because it has the same concept of supremacy but with women as the rulers. The word matrix, however, comes from matri- and is a network, not a pyramid.
How can the King put everything in order with everything outside being chaos? Where do women fit if even fertility has become part of the King archetype?
Just some thoughts but I know our hearts are in the same place on this, so I'm just thinking aloud with you as a reality check. Your thoughts?
Sorry I missed this comment Tereza. The only reason I saw it is because Clarence came in and threw some shit around the house, so I guess we can give him credit for something. As for the king and the King archetype, there is a vast gulf between the two. Toxic masculinity I would loosely define as a man acting out of archetypal shadow, which of course could be any man of any stature of any race. As for archetype, I am using the Jungian framework, meaning a kind of energy something like what people talk about when they say egregore, an energy in the human deep consciousness. As for women and the King archetype, I can only say what do women need from their fathers?
btw I have used the 'ban user' function of my Substack liberally. I feel that it's especially important because I'm critiquing ideas like Semitism and the Jesus version of Christianity that, I feel, have tricked us into following imperialism. So anyone who tries to piggyback on my critique of ideas and twist that into an attack on people is banned indefinitely. Just sayin'
Clarence was my first real troll on this substack, and his ire wasn't even directed at me. His anti-semitism and gay hating caught me by surprise. I am loathe to ban anyone, but he simply kept repeating himself, despite repeated warnings. Speaking of shadow.
It is fascinating how Christianity and Judaism overtook the pagan Roman empire, while this empire is monotheist at it's core. The trans woke crowd might think themselves the grassroots that takes down the empire, but I don't think they are going to inherit it.
It took some thinking for me to arrive at a banning policy, since it's been used against me more than once. So the distinction between "no ideas are off-limits" and "all people are off-limits" helped me clarify.
Looking at 'scriptures' as socio-economic tools with religious terminology has also been clarifying. The Semitic version of Judaism was in alliance, I believe, with the Pharaohs, and the Jesus version of Christianity was in alliance, I believe, with Caesar--first Vespasian then Constantine when he edited it then it turned into the Holy Roman Empire, which gave an empire without borders.
So the Egyptians and Romans of those eras were monotheistic in enforcing the religion that Pharaoh or Caesar was God. This form of Judeo-Christianity just tricked people into the same model, different names. Instead of Popes and kings being God, God protected their divine right to rule, and the only proof needed was that they DID rule seemingly without God's intervention. So the idea that God could intervene meant that might made right.
Trans-wokism is another tool, another way our love is being used against us. People want to be accepting, inclusive. This gives kids who don't feel accepted by their peers a kind of 'specialness' and power. Bullying is real and middle/HS's are vicious. 'They' create the problem and then 'they' impose their solution--just like the virus and 'vaccines'.
It's a symptom, imo, and another way of turning us against each other. Fix the cause, which is the theft of our sovereignty--bodily, family, community--and the symptoms will fix themselves. imo.
I think the future is anarchic, in the sense that anarchy is the way of nature, nature organizing itself spontaneously, ever striving after diversity, even if the anarchs of the day are merely destroyers of order. The not so distant future is a return to the local and the collapse of current empires. New empires will rise, the key will be maintaining local order and sovereignty generally.
As for the Trans, I understand the draw in the sense they feel accepted and empowered, while they feel none of that otherwise. They key would be to embrace them as they are, but as you say schools are vicious. It is a tricky dance, as I want to support Trans individuals, but the woke Trans see me as the enemy, while I see the transhumanist woke movement as an existential threat to human freedom and existence
Hence good not to become overly invested in any one archetype, rather than allowing many archetypes to inform behavior. But also a good life lesson, how we sometimes act out of archetypes without understanding. Also, yes, the king archetype is prime-ultimate, and can come to rule all, out of shadow.
I absolutely loved this post. Very empowering. I just got down my old copy of Jean Shinoda’s “Goddesses in Everywoman”. I had forgotten how strengthening studying mythology and archetypes could be. Thank you for reminding of that.
Much appreciated. More to come!
William! I just posted this link and one from your Late Thoughts in Winter in a reply to Mara on my last episode. She's also talking about the Jungian shadow, and I had your episode saved as a draft for a future post.
I appreciate being able to continue the conversation as an exploration of things we're both trying to understand. I hope that my comments are seen in that light.
You write, "It is fashionable these days to think that a concept so “toxic masculine” as a king could only have come from Western culture, aka white supremacy." But then you show that the concept of supremacy isn't exclusive to whites. Does that make it not toxic? In trying to differentiate between tonic, I've been asking myself what toxic really means. What's the poison that tonic heals? I think it's the concept of supremacy, superiority, domination, competition.
I wondered if 'archetype' had a common root to archon, the Greek word for rulers that hierarchy derives from. The Merriam-Webster says: Archetype comes from the Greek verb archein ("to begin" or "to rule") and the noun typos ("type"). So it's the firstborn, in primogeniture, to whom the right to rule was passed down.
I've stopped using the term matriarchy because it has the same concept of supremacy but with women as the rulers. The word matrix, however, comes from matri- and is a network, not a pyramid.
How can the King put everything in order with everything outside being chaos? Where do women fit if even fertility has become part of the King archetype?
Just some thoughts but I know our hearts are in the same place on this, so I'm just thinking aloud with you as a reality check. Your thoughts?
Sorry I missed this comment Tereza. The only reason I saw it is because Clarence came in and threw some shit around the house, so I guess we can give him credit for something. As for the king and the King archetype, there is a vast gulf between the two. Toxic masculinity I would loosely define as a man acting out of archetypal shadow, which of course could be any man of any stature of any race. As for archetype, I am using the Jungian framework, meaning a kind of energy something like what people talk about when they say egregore, an energy in the human deep consciousness. As for women and the King archetype, I can only say what do women need from their fathers?
btw I have used the 'ban user' function of my Substack liberally. I feel that it's especially important because I'm critiquing ideas like Semitism and the Jesus version of Christianity that, I feel, have tricked us into following imperialism. So anyone who tries to piggyback on my critique of ideas and twist that into an attack on people is banned indefinitely. Just sayin'
Clarence was my first real troll on this substack, and his ire wasn't even directed at me. His anti-semitism and gay hating caught me by surprise. I am loathe to ban anyone, but he simply kept repeating himself, despite repeated warnings. Speaking of shadow.
It is fascinating how Christianity and Judaism overtook the pagan Roman empire, while this empire is monotheist at it's core. The trans woke crowd might think themselves the grassroots that takes down the empire, but I don't think they are going to inherit it.
It took some thinking for me to arrive at a banning policy, since it's been used against me more than once. So the distinction between "no ideas are off-limits" and "all people are off-limits" helped me clarify.
Looking at 'scriptures' as socio-economic tools with religious terminology has also been clarifying. The Semitic version of Judaism was in alliance, I believe, with the Pharaohs, and the Jesus version of Christianity was in alliance, I believe, with Caesar--first Vespasian then Constantine when he edited it then it turned into the Holy Roman Empire, which gave an empire without borders.
So the Egyptians and Romans of those eras were monotheistic in enforcing the religion that Pharaoh or Caesar was God. This form of Judeo-Christianity just tricked people into the same model, different names. Instead of Popes and kings being God, God protected their divine right to rule, and the only proof needed was that they DID rule seemingly without God's intervention. So the idea that God could intervene meant that might made right.
Trans-wokism is another tool, another way our love is being used against us. People want to be accepting, inclusive. This gives kids who don't feel accepted by their peers a kind of 'specialness' and power. Bullying is real and middle/HS's are vicious. 'They' create the problem and then 'they' impose their solution--just like the virus and 'vaccines'.
It's a symptom, imo, and another way of turning us against each other. Fix the cause, which is the theft of our sovereignty--bodily, family, community--and the symptoms will fix themselves. imo.
I think the future is anarchic, in the sense that anarchy is the way of nature, nature organizing itself spontaneously, ever striving after diversity, even if the anarchs of the day are merely destroyers of order. The not so distant future is a return to the local and the collapse of current empires. New empires will rise, the key will be maintaining local order and sovereignty generally.
As for the Trans, I understand the draw in the sense they feel accepted and empowered, while they feel none of that otherwise. They key would be to embrace them as they are, but as you say schools are vicious. It is a tricky dance, as I want to support Trans individuals, but the woke Trans see me as the enemy, while I see the transhumanist woke movement as an existential threat to human freedom and existence
Agreed on an anarchic future. I don't think new empires will rise unless we're willing to fund conquest and look the other way again.
Unfortunately, there are too many Americans willing to bow down and do the bidding of their commander-in-chief.
Hence good not to become overly invested in any one archetype, rather than allowing many archetypes to inform behavior. But also a good life lesson, how we sometimes act out of archetypes without understanding. Also, yes, the king archetype is prime-ultimate, and can come to rule all, out of shadow.
You have been warned. repeatedly. Goodbye.
He's a friend of mine, and my editor. So you can apologize and let such language go, or say goodbye.