1,661 words 
If it’s always sunny in Philadelphia, then why did it rain there on my gay wedding? Regardless, even a spring thunderstorm couldn’t wash away the joy of that outdoor event. Whatever the clouds above were doing I was on cloud nine, and it seemed that everyone from the wedding attendees to the city employees who later gave me my official marriage certificate was as happy for me as I was.
I was certain in those days that the Supreme Court had made the right decision in making gay marriage the law of the land. But society has changed quite a bit since then. Some of these changes have convinced me that the Supreme Court’s judgment in Obergefell v. Hodges was a mistake—one which we must not repeat when we get our North American ethnostate.
Gay marriage has opened the Pandora’s Box to transgender ideology, a worldview that promotes the chemical and surgical mutilation of disordered individuals, including minors. Admittedly, this is by no means the first claim that gay marriage has proved a slippery slope to transgender ideology. However, unlike many such claims it will explain why the legalization of gay marriage has led to millions of Americans spontaneously taking up the cause of transgender rights. It will also detail why, once the dust has settled on the transgender issue, a push for the normalization of pedophilia may be next.
Swiss psychologist Carl Jung popularized the idea of archetypes, which he described as distinct thought-forms existing in the unconscious of every human being. Jung believed the integration of these latent archetypes into an individual’s consciousness to be crucial for self-development and self-actualization. He termed the process by which these archetypes are integrated the individuation process, which begins with the projection of the relevant archetype onto facets of the outside world. Narratives, historical and legendary figures, religious symbols, and even particular groups of people that seem to have either a holy or demonic aura often do so because they are serving as screens for the projection of one’s own unconscious characteristics.
Consider the hero archetype as an example. The archetype itself is the personification of a conglomerate of traits such as bravery, strength, and fealty to duty which a man must develop in himself, in one capacity or another, to realize the full expression of his manhood. Early projections of this archetype during childhood attach to toy soldiers, superheroes, and all those related characters that fascinate boys through their adolescence. Interest in these figures wanes as the boy becomes a man and, guided by both his natural, internal processes and society, increasingly embodies the qualities they represent.
What has any of this to do with gay marriage or transgender ideology? There is an extremely important archetype which Jung named the coniunctio oppisitorum, or the conjunction of divine opposites. He described the archetype and its role in the highly symbolic functioning of the unconscious as follows:
[A] content can only be integrated […] when it is grasped not merely intellectually but understood according to its feeling-value. Intellect and feeling, however, are difficult to put into one harness—they conflict with one another by definition. Whoever identifies with an intellectual standpoint will occasionally find his feeling confronting him like an enemy […] conversely, [one’s intellect] will make violent attacks on the feeling standpoint. Therefore, anyone who wants to achieve the difficult feat of realizing something not only intellectually, but also according to its feeling-value, must for better or worse come to grips with [this] problem in order to open the way for a higher union, a coniunctio oppositorum. This is an indispensable prerequisite for wholeness.[1]
In other words, the coniunctio oppositorum represents the harmonization of an archetype’s intellectual and emotional qualities so as to allow for its comfortable integration into an individual’s consciousness. It is the archetype that supports the integration of all other archetypes, securing their place in both our heads and hearts. People struggling to integrate unconscious elements into their consciousness, which is practically everyone, are naturally attracted to worldly representations of the coniunctio oppositorum.
The genius of defining marriage in the traditional Western model – as a union between one man and one woman – was that doing so provided the institution with the archetypal mystique of a coniunctio oppositorum. In fact, it was society’s preeminent coniunctio oppositorum for thousands of years. The union was conceived as permanent and spiritual, the backbone of society and sacred in the eyes of God. Modernity brought about more relaxed attitudes, but even in these more recent times marriage remained a presumed inevitability for most of the population. However, the legalization of gay marriage was a game-changer, though the results were not immediately apparent. Obergefell v. Hodges stripped the institution of its status as a coniunctio oppositorum by redefining marriage as a union of either opposites or “sames” depending on the individuals involved. As a result, the institution lost its archetypal appeal. Today, we are rapidly becoming a society where marriage is but one lifestyle choice among many, no more or less valid than cohabitating, remaining single, or living in a polyamorous household. As traditional marriages are generally very good for both individuals and society as long as people choose their spouses wisely, this demotion is unfortunate.
Once marriage lost its status as a coniunctio oppositorum, the masses unconsciously began casting about for a substitute. Because the human mind seems to prefer human screens for its projections, it is unsurprising that so many settled on the transgender individual as traditional marriage’s archetypal replacement. Such individuals, with the body of one sex and the gender identity of the other, seem to embody within themselves that same union of opposites as a traditional marriage. As noted, we formerly honored traditional marriage’s status as a coniunctio oppositorum by elevating it to a sacred and, ideally, permanent union in the eyes of society and God. Today, we honor the transgender person’s status as a living coniunctio oppositorum through political activism aimed at giving transgender activists more or less whatever they demand, as well as by affording transgender people and their trials a prominence in our culture which their paltry numbers don’t warrant. For as Jung once famously wrote:
The old religions with their sublime and ridiculous, their friendly and fiendish symbols did not drop from the blue, but were born of this human soul that dwells within us at this moment. All those things, their primal forms live on in us and may at any time burst in upon us with annihilating force, in the guise of mass-suggestions against which the individual is defenseless. Our fearsome gods have only changed their names: they rhyme now with “ism.”[2]
In other words, the same archetypes which led ancient man to create religions still reside in our unconscious and are the driving force behindcontemporary political movements among the “secular” elements of modern society. In Jung’s day, these movements were Nazism and Bolshevism. Today, we have Wokism and its eldest daughter, transgender ideology.
In the Jungian view, an individual’s personal unconscious is a microcosm of the masses’ collective unconscious. Thus, individual psychological phenomenon have their collective counterparts and vice versa. Jung wrote that once the coniunctio oppositorum resolves itself in an individual’s mind, it gives way to the emergence of the archetype of the “divine child” as a symbol of achieved wholeness.[3] A coniunctio oppositorum can never be fully resolved in the collective unconscious because there will always be people individually affected by the archetype and thus attracted to its projection. However, this still suggests that once the issue of transgender rights is settledsociety will turn its attention to the emergence of a “divine child,” even if certain individuals continue to romanticize and idealize the transgender. This raises the question, what will this archetypal child look like? In what way will he be “divine?”
There are many possibilities, but society’s decades-long trend toward embracing greater degeneracy suggests that if an archetypal child is at the center of the next great controversy, then we will be dealing with a push to normalize pedophilia.To supporters of its legalization, many of whom will not be pedophiles themselves, the child will seem to realize its higher nature through its legal elevation to that of a consenting party in sex acts with adults. This possibility becomes much more likely if the transgender issue is settled in a way that permits children to transition. For if society concludes that a child can consent to puberty blockers and sex change operations, it becomes that mucheasier to argue that a child can consent to sex.
Gay marriage has the support of a solid majority of Americans and there is little chance the Supreme Court will overturn its ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges. However, we will have to grapple anew with the question of what status to afford same-sex couples when we get our ethnostate. I would propose that the compassionate and pragmatic option would be a compromise that recognizes marriage as an innately heterosexual union but provides for civil unions for same-sex couples, with many or all of the same rights and privileges. This seemingly milquetoast compromise was proposed in the 1990s and ultimately rejected by both sides, but we will hopefully be a bit wiser in the future. Such a compromise would preserve marriage’s traditional mystique without unjustly relegating gay men and lesbians to the fringes of society. It would also neuter transgender ideology by preserving marriage as society’s preeminent coniunctio oppositorum, thus restoring some sanity to the discussion surrounding a very real and painful – but in many childhood cases, impermanent – condition. And it may just serve as a bulwark against the normalization of pedophilia further down the road.
Notes
[1] Carl Jung, Aion: Researches into the Phenomenology of the Self, 2nd ed, ed. William McGuire (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1959), 31.
[2] Carl Jung, Two Essays on Analytical Psychology, 2nd ed,ed. William McGuire(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1953), 204.
[3] Carl Jung, Aion: Researches into the Phenomenology of the Self, 2nd ed, ed. William McGuire (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1959), 31.
24 comments
What a fascinating article.
So, traditionally, a man and woman marry, become “one flesh,” have a child which they, and supporters of the institution, nurture (as tantamountly divine).
But perversely, a transgender’s opposite body and mind become one (are wed) by surgery; the imaginary womb has a child by acquisition (adoption, grooming, etc); then, consistent with the tranny’s highest value (titillation) the child is “adored.”
Or something like that….
Good article!
I agree that would’ve been the best way to handle it – marriage for one man and one woman, and civil unions for every other relational permutation, which would work basically the same way with terminology as the major difference. Still, that very modest compromise wasn’t good enough for the Homintern, and whatever they want, they eventually get one way or another.
Still, I was glad for the Obergefell ruling for one reason – the Homintern finally got everything they wanted, so they would quit beating the drums for once. Well, I should’ve known better than to ice the champagne. The next week, the cause du jour was transsexuality, and they’re still pounding at the drums.
As for the pedo agenda, that one’s been in the works for a long way. I recall a gaggle of nasty leftists in the 1960s petitioning to lower the age of consent in France, including the practitioners Jean-Paul Tartre and his girlfriend Simone the Beaver.
There is no room for compromise here. Follow the way of self denial or exit the ideal society.
I see it differently, though I don’t have the time to go into it deeply. As a philistine, I don’t put much stock in the coniunctio oppositorum propelling trans madness. Rather, I think individualism eroded the purpose of marriage. Once marriage became defined as merely a vehicle to further people’s happiness, then it became churlish to deny that to gays. And if divorce makes you happier, then by all means divorce! If polyamorous groupings float your boat, who are we to judge? And while we’re being so sexually accepting, how dare we deny happiness to any other flavor of queer? LGBTQIA2S+!
But of course, marriage isn’t just about your personal happiness. Or it’s not supposed to be. It’s supposed to serve as a foundation for family formation, which provides for charity (towards kin), for care of the elderly, for cooperation in family business and wealth building, for social stability as the unit of society, and more. When the unit of society is the atomized individual, we lose all these things.
There’s more to it than that, such as the whole anti-discrimination ethos, where you can never judge someone for a trait they were both with (or claim to have been born with…). But I’ve gotta go…
It’s hard to imagine a push for pedophilia, but if leftists demand that 13-year-olds be allowed to sterilize and mutilate themselves without parental consent, then how can we deny them sex too? Somebody just has to say that it’ll make them happy…
In following the same thoughts;
“These days we are expressing our discontent with subjects like gay marriages, afraid of corrupting the traditional marriage union. Undoing the moral fiber of the greatest most important element, which makes up a stable and normal human society, the traditional family. Yet we somehow missed the fact that we as a nation have IL legitimized or bastardized the conception of traditional marriage and family long before gay marriage became an issue and more than any group before us. Perhaps our problems are a product of this decimation. Where but in America do we find a more leading society that practices divorce, alimony, palimony, child custody disputes, support and the infusion of the legal trade for its function in working marriage laws and settlements costing individuals hundreds of thousands of dollars for this “organized system of services”. Some “conservatives” claim to want to defend traditional values. It seems that none of these novices mentioned above are traditional and when we switch the attention to the gay community, or blame and also attack patriarchy for profit, it seems that the only traditions being defended here are traditional witch hunts and executions. We are defending the divisive manipulation of society for profit, and empowering the same questionable manipulating authorities or powers.”
Liberal social causes are always a slippery slope because even when liberals succeed in moving the goal posts, it never assuages their feelings of inferiority and seething hatred for healthy individuals.
The deeply nefarious part is that liberals always begin their socially destructive changes under reasonable pretexts that appeal to a broad audience. Take abortion for instance; intially liberals framed it as a tragic necessity when a woman’s health is in jeopardy or when a very young and vulnerable girl is faced with a life altering predicament. However, after they move the goal posts and get society writ large to support abortion under these reasonable pretenses, it then morphs into liberal women celebrating abortions on tiktok as a joyous occasion and it becoming the be all, end all political position for them.
Normalizing and legalizing pedophilia would give liberals a sadistic sense of relief for literally less than a day, then their inferiority complex would resurface and drive them to work on making cannibalism a hallmark of our “sacred democracy”.
This conspiracy idea has been going on awhile. Odd to see it resurrected just as the Rotherham UK grooming scandal has been in the news.
I favor Steve Sailer‘s take (“What’s the New Current Thing“)…. polyamory, which seems increasingly apparent in all gender and sexual orientation categories. Right now there is no legal poly marriage. But in the coming decade I expect an increasing number of articles, documentaries, poly TV characters and then a push to legalize three… or more.
Interesting essay. It provides the reader with a very plausible framework through which to view this issue.
I would have preferred the essay, which is very intelligent and effective, omit any recommendations. I think it is true that we don’t want to relegate homosexual and lesbian individuals outside of society. These people are at least as capable as others are of great creativity and competence. I think we do, however, want their homosexuality to be shoved back into the closet. It is no more relevant to social health than masturbation. This behavior of theirs can be practiced privately or in a red light district somewhere.
Epëma West: January 30, 2025 Interesting essay… I think it is true that we don’t want to relegate homosexual and lesbian individuals outside of society. These people are at least as capable as others are of great creativity and competence. I think we do, however, want their homosexuality to be shoved back into the closet.
—
The issue is bigger than just creative homos being out of their closets.
The queers and other LGBT freaks have there own groups, their own “society,” so I’ll respectfully disagree with you and with the author, who I assume is very happy in his queer marriage. Good for him. does he say whether he is the husband or the wife? I didn’t read his entire piece.
I’m unaware of other pro-White organizations’ position on the question, but all LGBT individuals are explicitly ineligible for National Alliance membership. Our member like it that way. We relegate them all outside of our society as we build a new healthful White world.
You don’t think the wiser approach is simply to have a way to delegitimize those anti-natalist elements? Such as sexual perversions or destructive drug use? Shouldn’t we just shove them to the margins? Rather than police them?
Epëma West: January 31, 2025 You don’t think the wiser approach is simply to have a way to delegitimize those anti-natalist elements?
—
Did you mean to say anti-nativist? If so, then no.
—
…Such as sexual perversions or destructive drug use? Shouldn’t we just shove them to the margins? Rather than police them?
—
It;s a sick world out there, Epëma. We can only control our own White separatist community, attracting other eligible Whites who are attracted to our reasonable standards. We do not have the authority to shove anyone in the outgroup anywhere, or to police them. Short shrift to them; they are own their own.
By the way, hard drug users, alcoholics and those addicted to porn are also ineligible for NA membership, along with LGBT freaks, Jews, other non-Whites and Whites with non-White dependendents. See where we draw the line, here: What is the National Alliance? | National Alliance
I’d intended what is there; anti-natalist.
I think too much of what you’ve said is not terribly viable, but my best to you and yours.
MMazari79: January 31, 2025 There is no wife in a gay male relationship.
—
I’m confused. Was former Secretary of Transportation, Pete Buttplug, on maternity leave for two months or was it paternity leave? He has a husband, so he must be the wife in that queer marriage, right? https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/buttigieg-responds-pences-joke-maternity-leave/
Since Buttigieg and his husband Chasten adopted newborn twins in 2021, the Democrat and his family have been repeatedly criticized and mocked by Republicans…
—
As for your National Alliance you should of course be free to associate or not associate with whomever you please.
—
Thanks again for your generous altruism, MM. I had suggested that NA’s Media Director, Kevin Strom, deal with Trump’s half-hearted anti-transgenderism policies as he danced around with the Village People queer singers at his inauguration love fest after previously hugging a rainbow flag. Kevin effectively addressed this in today’s American Dissident Voices broadcast: LGBQTrump | National Vanguard
…[J]ust in case it isn’t obvious, that transgenders and homosexuals and other unfortunate perverts are all banned from membership in the National Alliance, as are those who are in interracial relationships. We are the future, and the future is clean, bright, and beautiful…
It is truly amazing how many thousands upon thousands of people are now saying that they want nothing to do with this sick transgender business. It’s our job to do more than chime in. We have to chime in with the facts on how Jews have had leadership roles in promoting transgenderism and sexual perversion, ever since Weimar Germany and the days of Magnus Hirschfeld. [See: Magnus Hirschfeld | Holocaust Encyclopedia]. We have to point out that only the National Alliance is truly uncompromising and uncorrupted on these issues, and deserves the support of every decent White American.
Guillaume Faye spoke on this. Basically, that public life/duty is distinct from the private domain of behaviors and vices (same sex, regulated prostitution, drug use within limits, atheism, gambling) that should not be promoted as cool nor damned to hell by puritan whackjobs but are recognized as things that will always be there and dealt with as a pressure release valve in as proper a manner as possible. Relegating homosexuality to inferior than hetero because of its non-reproductive function and shorning it of all insufferable gayness, a sort of recloseting policy that’s tolerated on the margins and doesn’t dare cross into predatory crime, let alone be given a religious consecration, is appropriate. Neither draconian barbarism nor rainbows at gunpoint.
That is extremely well said! I have had strikingly similar thoughts for some time now. I can’t imagine society without a sense of what is proper and improper. And what is proper, in my mind, can only be of a natalist sensibility.
Let me say a word about homosexual versus heterosexual: I think that there shouldn’t even be word for hetero and homosexual. When these words exist, it as though we are tacitly presenting heterosexual as just one item on a menu of possible — and equally proper — sexualities. This would be completely idiotic and dysfunctional. There is no such thing as heterosexual and homosexual. There is only proper and improper. Legitimate and illegitimate.
It is for this reason that I believe in the closet. That which is illegitimate is not by itself a cancer, not unless it is commandeered and weaponized, that is. Rather, it is simply not done. And that which is not done may be done elsewhere, which is fine with me.
There is no wife in a gay male relationship.
As for your National Alliance you should of course be free to associate or not associate with whomever you please.
MMazari79: January 31, 2025 There is no wife in a gay male relationship.
As for your National Alliance you should of course be free to associate or not associate with whomever you please.
—
Thanks for recognizing that, MM. Though the words “freedom of association” are not explicitly mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, they are considered an implicit right guaranteed especially by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to join with others either in personal relationships or as part of a group usually having a common viewpoint or purpose and often exercising the right to assemble and to free speech. The Constitution is obsolete today for White separatists, but the freedom to associate exclusively with those of one’s choice is not.
Mirriam-Webster’s definition of marriage:
The definition of the word marriage—or, more accurately, the understanding of what the institution of marriage properly consists of—continues to be highly controversial. This is not an issue to be resolved by dictionaries. Ultimately, the controversy involves cultural traditions, religious beliefs, legal rulings, and ideas about fairness and basic human rights. The principal point of dispute has to do with marriage between two people of the same sex, often referred to as same-sex marriage or gay marriage. Same-sex marriages are now recognized by law in a growing number of countries and were legally validated throughout the U.S. by the Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015. In many other parts of the world, marriage continues to be allowed only between men and women. The definition of marriage shown here is intentionally broad enough to encompass the different types of marriage that are currently recognized in varying cultures, places, religions, and systems of law.
Our Alliance follows Nature’s laws for how our people make White babies and don’t care what the Supreme Court ruled 10 years ago about queer marriages.
While in the dictionary I looked up the word “queer” and was surprised to see old definitions of odd, peculiar, weird, suspicious, questionable, even sick and unwell.
Looked up the word “gay” also to see it meant happily excited or merry, before it was co-opted by the fudge-packers. They stole the wonderful natural phenomenon of a rainbow as their symbol for unnatural perversions. We’ll take the rainbow back from them, thanks.
Will,
If you absolutely cannot let an “LGBT freak” (I’m sure you’re physically, mentally and genetically perfect) write an article for a pro-white webzine without opining on why we should be shut out of pro-white groups, then why not write your own article laying out your reasons instead of shoehorning your viewpoint into a discussion about something else entirely?
The point of my article was not to argue for a place at the table for pro-white homosexuals but to alert people to a very real danger to children that I think is maybe ten or twenty years down the road, if that. I only mentioned my own sexual orientation to add strength to my argument that gay marriage was a mistake, which you likely would have realized had you bothered to read the article through to the end.
If these evil scum get their way pedophilia, actually the rape, torture, and killing of White children which they’re already doing by enabling these disgusting invaders (stop calling them grooming gangs. These savages aren’t women taking etiquette classes balancing a book on their head) will be as normal as pride parades and yet a further descent into the kali yugan abyss. They’re already mitigating these crimes by rebranding as ‘maps’ so monsters like the zulock ‘family’ in Atlanta will be just another lifestyle choice. I expect snuff films, bestiality, and cannibalism to emerge from this as well. The fact that this devilry is tolerated by the most heavily armed population in the world with such cruel and casual indifference is too much to bear. If Dominique Venner were back, he would not change a thing.
Epëma West: January 31, 2025 I’d intended what is there; anti-natalist…
—
You must have gone to college. I was unfamiliar with that word. Anti-nativist is synomynous with anti-nationalist, a concept I’m familiar with, being a racial nationalist.
OK, I found natilist, defined as one who favors and encourages population growth. Homos and lesbians will delegitimize themselves without any help from our Alliance since their “same-sex marriages” cannot make babies. They can currently adopt White babies but that practice will end under a racislly responsible Alliance government
One amusing outcome has been the EIGHT YEAR divorce of Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie following their insistence that they would only marry when gays were allowed to.
Mr. Mazari, I don’t write articles for webzines except for an occasional piece at National Vanguard, the National Alliance’s online magazine, like this piece put up there yesterday: Chairman Williams: Letter on Immigration | National Vanguard
I comment here at C-C under articles that interest me and under others’ comments, and try to stay on-topic.
I don’t say LGBT freaks should be shut out of pro-White groups, only from my group, the National Alliance. Dr. Pierce made homosexuals and bisexuals ineligible back in his day. Transgenderism wasn’t an issue when he founded NA. I’ve added trans freaks. Anyone who believes in our work can support the Alliance financially, but certain types cannot be members.
If C-C is a pro-White group and not just a webzine, then you’ve been accepted in a pro-White group. I respect your honesty about being queer.
—
MMazari79: February 2, 2025 at 3:20 am Will, If you absolutely cannot let an “LGBT freak” (I’m sure you’re physically, mentally and genetically perfect) write an article for a pro-white webzine without opining on why we should be shut out of pro-white groups, then why not write your own article laying out your reasons instead of shoehorning your viewpoint into a discussion about something else entirely?
The point of my article was not to argue for a place at the table for pro-white homosexuals but to alert people to a very real danger to children that I think is maybe ten or twenty years down the road, if that. I only mentioned my own sexual orientation to add strength to my argument that gay marriage was a mistake, which you likely would have realized had you bothered to read the article through to the end.
—
I didn’t need to read your entire article to know “gay marriage” is a mistake, and I’m damned sure not going to wait around for ten to twenty years to see the danger LGBT poses to White children. The perverse danger has already been here that long and longer. I like to point people to relevant NV articles. By putting ‘homosexuals’ in NV’s search block more than 60 articles come up, like this aptly titled: Homosexuals Are Normalizing Pedophilia | National Vanguard
Don’t take it personally, Mr. Mazari. NA is an educational organization, and this is one of the ways I like to educate our people.
This is a very strange article. You open it by asserting that gay marriage was a slippery slope to unsustainable degeneracy and end it by asserting the need for gay civil unions instead of gay marriages. Marriage for heterosexuals and civil union for homosexuals is a distinction without a difference, especially in the symbological, Jungian context that you’ve chosen here. Your conclusion does not follow from your opening premise.
I would say that we actually had a civilized solution for a long time – homosexuals remained “in the closet” and the rest of polite society didn’t ask too many questions. That was the deal and it was in service of heterosexual norms. You allude to this when you emphasize the need for homosexuals to not be “unjustly relegated to the fringes”, but was it really unjust when the alternative was opening Pandora’s Box?
You are deploying the language of leftists here i.e. ideas of marginalization. But to rally against marginalization while simultaneously defending the preservation of social taboos is a conceptual incoherency.
Very well said, and a reflection of my own thoughts. To each their own personal life, but it seemed a bizarre opening to read that the author is “gay-married” as a starting point to express concern about further slippage down the proverbial slippery-slope. At first, I thought it was some sort of fictional “what if” pretense to make a larger point and that later would come a punch-line, of sorts. (“But, seriously folks — back in the REAL world!”)
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.