Yeah, me too. I've noticed JP has quite a significant blindspot when it comes to politics in the middle east. During the protests in Iran, he was all over Twitter, reposting a lot of questionable anti-Assad/pro-protestor propaganda, and same thing recently in Syria too. But nary a peep out of him when all those Palestinian protestors were killed by the IDF a couple weeks ago. I know it can't be easy for him, navigating the JQ, because he will always anger one faction of the right or left no matter what position he takes. So far, he seems to be sticking with the "higher than average IQ = success" theory, which might explain some things, but when a government openly kills protestors on live TV, it's hard to find any reasonable defence for something like that.I highly value Jordan Peterson's capability for articulating simple truths and basic understandings. However, I cringe when I hear him talk about politics. Thousands of people highly regard him and when he talks about geopolitics, people listen. He could easily be co-opted if he is not aware. I think that in his position, it would be better if he refrains himself from talking about geopolitics or involving himself with this subject if he doesn't have the time to network about it or get an informed opinion. On the other hand, it might be asking too much.
In regards to Jung, it's interesting that one of JP's major influences has turned out to be such a despicable person in real life, and appears now to have had a hand in facilitating the very ideology that JP is railing against. Similar thing with Solzhenitsyn, whose book - Two Hundred Years Together - is criticized by many on the left for being anti-semitic for exploring the idea that certain prominent Jews were in involved in the Communist revolution.
I have never read any book by Jung to completion, but I did start a few pages into Man and his Symbols, and remember not being very impressed with it. Same thing happened when I tried to read Freud's Interpretation of Dreams. That these two German psychologists, as divergent as their ideas are, have had so much influence on modern western psychological thought is quite remarkable.
Lately, when I think about the clash of civilizations, it is less in terms of Islam versus Christianity, but more in terms of Conservative versus Liberal, or neo-Nazi vs Antifa at either extreme. It's almost like this split is being deliberately designed to encompass everybody eventually, with those in the middle being drawn to one side or the other for some future disastrous conflict.
Then it occurred to me that perhaps the ideological split between the ideas of Freud and Jung, are not unlike the split we are seeing in our modern society. In a way, Freud could represent the Conservative side, obsessed with science, order and repression, whereas Jung could be representing the Liberal side, with it's progressive gender-bending, sexually permissive hedonism.
Like when the C's said "there's a program for everybody" - these two psychologists pretty much cover the entire gamut.