This page is related to several other archetypes and pages, including MMIW, Human Trafficking, the Suicide Bomber and others.
These are strictly 'melting pot' archetypes and involve the latter stages of consolidating the 'gains' of the melting pot against the indigenous cultures that pre existed it.
Like all of the archetypes listed on this website, these involve speculation, as Jung encourages in the motto, to the right, from https://www.amazon.com/Psychology-Transference...
The Shadow Saboteur and the Transgender Convert
Jung described a 'shadow' archetype, along with sub versions like the anima and animus. The shadow saboteur is similar to the latter two, in that it differentiates between two complimentary parts of a melting pot, the traditional and the new. It specifically favors, or supports, the melting pot, or new society.
A corresponding indigenous or traditional archetype must also exist, but it would have developed after the 'shadow saboteur' and is not yet easily visible.
An example of the shadow saboteur will be given in the context of the 'transgender' fad in the United States.
Most people are familiar with the superficial or overt context. A young person says that they identify as belonging in a competing role, a male identifies as a female or a female identifies as a male. This is something that has gone on since the first melting pot, and has a function, as described elsewhere on this site.
The next step though is new and unique, the emergence of the shadow saboteur, who encourages the slow suicide involved in the role, but uses the guise of 'helping' or 'protecting' the role playing or 'gender confused' victim via science.
The goal of the melting pot shadow saboteur is to develop the compensating gender identity of the victim as far as possible. In other words he or she wants the role reversal to last as long as possible, ideally the gender confusion would be 'permanent', and the victim, the 'transgender' person, would become a permanent outpost or servant of the melting pot.
Here is one example of an easily visible tactic used in this context by the shadow saboteur.
Of course no rational person would encourage a stranger to permanently adopt a gender identity that conflicted with that person's physical reality. So a pretext is needed, a scenario that seems to mandate the sabotage.
In this case the backdrop is provided by the high suicide rate of people in the midst of transgender confusion or role playing.
The shadow saboteur, under cover of science, uses statistical deception to promote the silliness that a permanent 'gender change' is healthy in some people.
First they take a population of gender confused individuals and divide it into two subsets.
One subset is given abstract and material 'support' for the changed or 'new' gender identity, in the form of chemicals that alter the victim's physiology towards the target gender, for example, as well as affirmation of the role by authority figures. This group will have a lower suicide rate of course, as long as the individual remains within the role.
The second subset is left with their natural resources, but no artificial chemical or surgical support for their role, nor affirmation from 'authority' figures in science or medicine. This group continues with the higher mortality rate associated with people who identify longterm with roles that are incompatible with reality.
So the shadow saboteur seems to have affirmed, or proven, that the role that was being played, the new gender, was in fact healthy and the 'real' identity of the victim. The melting pot is strengthened in the short term, the scientist shadow saboteur has established some sort of credential as an expert, and the victim believes his or her role has been validated.
The long term effects of this scientific misbehavior on the melting pot and on the victim are not hard to guess.
The saboteur may escape accountability by melting back into the scientific community or otherwise hiding, but his or her work will lead to a cascading series of events that ultimately will be determined by the counter balancing archetype, i.e., the compensating 'indigenous' version of the shadow saboteur.
A fair guess, based on the context of where the melting pot is now, is that the slower the 'indigenous reaction' is to develop, the more harmful it will be to the melting pot.
In other words nature will weaken the melting pot until the weakened indigenous component of society spontaneously develops a function against the melting pot which makes the indigenous side more survivable. An example of nature solving a crime that offends it. No 'action' or intent is needed by the indigenous side, in fact the sabotage itself could be perceived as having been led by the indigenous remnant of melting pot minds.
In analytical psychology, libido is a basic energy that is directed toward all sorts of external things.
In common usage the word is used to refer to sexual energy, but there is very strong evidence that in fact much of the energy under many nonsexual responses is a sublimated libido, libido refined or disciplined in a certain direction.
One of the signatures of melting pot science is a lack of perspective, what could be called a lack of humility towards nature. Often scientists will observe something they feel 'could be improved' and they won't question first whether such change is wise. For example a common thing in the news is new crops that have insecticide genes inserted. It is something that has an obvious very short term benefit, but lacks perspecive.
John Money was a psychologist who encouraged the idea that 'sexual identity' was entirely social, or psychological. He believed that a male or female identity is created, not born.
He was, and still is, widely respected in some circles, despite strong evidence that his 'scientific ideas' were more the product of his own unresolved issues.
To the right is a clipping from the May 17, 1977 Chicago Tribune.
A group of pornographers who photographed children were arrested, and the investigator is saying that he has come up with a revolutionary new idea. His brilliant idea is to arrest the cameramen and producers of child pornography, presumably as opposed to simply arresting the children.
Attitudes have changed a bit since then.
Every person has some degree of what could objectively be called 'misdirected libido'. Libido that is neither directed in a healthy sexual direction nor sublimated in a healthy nonsexual direction.
Libido isn't arbitrarily misdirected. It isn't just some chance that pushes an energy in a specific direction, it is some attempt to balance or re analyze a past pattern.
Any specific misdirection could be a major crime in one area and a local virtue in another.
It just so happens that pedophilia, for example, was not a super major crime in Chicago, and in most other places, in 1977. If a person were attracted to much younger people their acquaintances might squint at them, and certainly the targets of their attention would find them intuitively 'unnatural' or unhealthy, but it would be considered a psychological or social, rather than criminal, problem.
Likewise with other unconventional patterns, like homosexuality and transgender 'identity', but in a significantly different way.
People who consider themselves homosexual have always been one of many groups a little out of the mainstream, but in modern 'progressive' society homosexuality is considered a normal identity that does not need to be examined, rather than an indication of misdirected libido.
Transgender 'identity', likewise, has shifted from being 'a painful internal conflict' to an 'essential part' of those who identify that way.
The bottom line is that people should worry about their own attractions or tastes, not other people's attractions or tastes, except when it crosses the line into somebody else's space. There is a difference between healthy liberty, which is extended also to others, and libertine which focuses only on ones own liberty without regard for that of others.
No rational and honest person would argue that homosexual or transgender actions are not libido poorly directed. They clearly are symptoms of 'something'.
But also, no rational scientist would say that homosexuality or transgender spring up from a vacuum in those who have those tastes. There are animals that pair as homosexuals in certain environments, and transgender 'identity' is a common melting pot theme across the world.
Whether homosexuals and transgender people are worshipped as saints or executed as criminals, there will always be about the same number of people at any given time who identify that way, so it is good to examine its probable root.
It is normal to perceive everything as having a 'lifespan', and part of this archetype is the perception of any specific 'indigenous culture' as being 'near the end of its lifespan' as the melting pot steps in to 'take its place'.
Of course there is no such natural lifespan of a culture unless the limit is forced, it's like killing every example of an animal at a certain age and then using that pattern of unnatural deaths as evidence that a specific animal has to be euthanized because it is old.
In order for this archetype to be consciously perceived by a melting pot person, he or she must first perceive foreign indigenous cultures as foreign. The common melting pot perception of indigenous cultures is that they are 'defective' versions of one's own culture, and the common political tendency is to pretend race is trivial or irrelevant.
The Transgender Convert is 'trailing evidence' of melting pot assimilation.
That means, like an echo or footprint, it can be used to deduce facts from the past that are otherwise obscure.
A person is the product of many different lineages.
He or she can be 'the product of their mother', 'the product of their father', 'the product of their geographic location', 'the product of their language', etc.
The natural tendency is to perceive oneself as the product of one's parents, but a melting pot encourages an individual to 'perceive' him or her self as a child, or product, of the melting pot.
As a general rule you can get the 'furthest' view of an individual's lineage by looking at physical characteristics that connect them to their parents, grandparents, great grandparents etc.
Trying to estimate melting pot, or 'political' lineages by observing an individual can be done, but because melting pot lineages are both artificial and unnatural, contrary to nature, they necessarily decay over time into evidence of the underlying natural lineages.
So, if you look at a person who is a mixture of 'indigenous group a' and 'indigenous group b', i.e., a child of two different indigenous group parents, he or she will have overt characteristics of the melting pot and overt characteristics of both indigenous groups, all of which is easily examined using 'superficial' evidence.
When you look at a person who is the product of four indigenous groups i.e., his or her four grandparents came from four distinct homogenous indigenous groups, the examination becomes more complex. The person is more likely to have overt melting pot characteristics i.e., a melting pot social education, and less likely to have easily identifiable overt characteristics of any one of their four source lineages. In other words each individual parent and grandparent passed more 'melting pot' characteristics to them and fewer 'traditional' characteristics.
Though the 'sum' of their traditional characteristics is still 100% obviously, that 100% at first glance seems to pertain less to any one specific source group.
The science of DNA, like any science, makes 'obvious' things more obvious to more people.
For example, scientists have used DNA to show that all humans alive today have a common female ancestor, from several hundred thousand years ago in Africa.
From that a person can deduce that amongst any group of females, DNA can be used to extrapolate common female ancestors at some point in the past. You can say 'such and such tribal group descended from a specific female roughly this many generations ago'.
Likewise male heritage is similarly qualifiable, even if it isn't commonly done yet. Men pass the second half of xx or xy to their offspring, so every child's 'gender assignment' can be traced through a paternal lineage. At the very least any male will carry residue of that in his 'y' and any female in her father's 'y', and in some other form in her own'x'.
In other words, among lineages, the 'male' or 'female' lineage is perhaps the most 'natural', the least a product of societal artifice.
Of course there are hermaphroditic animals, and various other 'contradictions', which has led to a certain paradigm regarding gender, a paradigm which, amongst humans, views 'female' as an original gender and male as secondary. This construct, paradigm, is common in industrialized sciences, in fact has even seeped into religions and mystical traditions. In other words it is a pervasive part of the melting pot mindset.
But it has a fatal flaw.
The concept of gender, in this paradigm, contains two distinct elements which are lumped together, undifferentiated. There is first the male/female physical gender, then the male/female metaphysical supposed attributes of each respective gender.
From this divergence has come a long term imbalance, something like a 'fatal disease of the species'. There are a lot of possible analogies and a lot of ways to view the imbalance. You could say an animal become imbalanced by hunger and solves that by eating food. In this case the 'imbalance' is a riddle, like 'hunger', but which needs other faculties to solve.
Once an isolated paradigm diverges from reality, it has an effect on other paradigms.
For example, suppose a scientist 'proved' that grass is orange and the sky is yellow.
He or she, if their proof was adequately accepted, could have collateral influence on any scientific data involving colors and other things. There might develop elaborate hypotheses involving the way the brain interprets colors etc.
'Gender Identity Disorder' is perceived differently in different melting pots.
As a general rule, the more 'stable' the melting pot, the more transgender individuals are assigned, or determined to have, some 'function' in society. In other words they exist in, and are accepted by, the 'leading edge' of a melting pot.
At first glance gender identity issues are distinctly not physical.
A person who 'believes' he or she is another gender is obviously not reacting to a physical cue. If a person claims that an apple is an orange, whatever evidence they may have, it is certainly not physical, they are 'assuming' an orange based on something, and then 'forcing' that assumption onto an apple.
In a genuinely homogenous indigenous group there are two very distinct 'tribes', men and women.
In all cultures there are subtle differences in gender languages, but those differences increase as you go away from the forced melting pot.
A forced melting pot is not designed to assimilate women from group a into women from group b, nor men from group a into men from group b. That would require motives that are different than those of the melting pot, but which exist in any group, including melting pots. A forced melting pot is simply intended to encourage homogeneity.
A purely indigenous language, or a language in a melting pot that is more or less stable over a period of time, will develop language structures whose purpose is to protect the symbiosis of the two 'tribes', and those structures, which discourage both melting pot assimilation and conquest, do not generally survive the melting pot itself, for the reason above i.e., "melting pots are not designed to assimilate women from group a into women from group b, nor..." etc.