Carl Jung's Secret Life: "The "Aryan Christ" - something rotten in Jungian psychology?

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.

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.

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.
I learned very early on in my medical degree that EVERYONE is dealing with "stuff".
It is true to some extant. In the case of Jung however, it seems that it was mostly about recruiting or converting than forming practitioner.

It seems to me that hyperdimensional powers intending evil did, certainly, take over Jung who was an egotistic mediocre doctor and would otherwise have never achieved fame. Those same powers probably manipulated things so that he could achieve fame and influence. The part about "doing good" would have to fall under the category of showing those who can SEE what hyperdimensional realities are like.
The sad thing is that not only Jung did it to himself, despite the damage he did to his niece early on, but he induced countless others to actively seek becoming willing vessels to what he calls "their gods".

Noll quotes a letter from Jung to Constance Long when he feared that she, and some other British analysis would follow Ouspanski and Gurdjieff instead of him. Couldn't find a separate source. The letter is reproduced here from The Aryan Christ:

Gnosis should be an experience of your own life, a plant grown on your own tree. Foreign gods are a sweet poison, but the vegetable gods you have raised in your own garden are nourishing. They are perhaps less beautiful but they have [illegible].
You shall not make totems of foreign trees [ ]. No one shall keep you else you trespass your limits; but blessed be the place where we meet the beginning of our limitations. Beyond one's frontiers there is not but illusion and misery, because there you arrive in a country of the wrong ancestor spirits and the wrong charms . . .
Why do you look for foreign teachings [i.e., the Russian's]? They are poisons, they did not come out of your blood. You should be on your own feet, and you have your own rich earth below them. Why should you listen to the word of a man who is off his own soil [Ouspensky was in exile]? Truth is tree with roots. It is not words. Truth only grows in your own garden, nowhere else.
Only feeble men eat the food of a stranger. But your people need a strong man, one who gets his truth in his own roots and out of his own blood. . . . "
Square brackets are from the author, not Jung.
Last edited:
I may wrong about that, but I feel JBP is humble enough for his ego to take a backseat and not be co-opted. However, he lacks understanding of politics. And I would go as far as saying that he's rather naive. JBP has millions of followers. Yes a few of them sift through what he say, keeping the good and leaving the bad, but most are followers. He has become a kind of prophet for them. Therefore, they gobble his words. I fear that he will endorse misguided positions

I wouldn't be too concerned about Peterson's skewed understanding of politics. Politics isn't really his 'thing' and he never claims that it is. Any mention of politics by him is used to back up his other primary points. From what he and others have said about the people that he has met and talked to directly, only a tiny percentage of them are even interested in the political SJW aspect of what he says. The vast majority want to talk to him about their personal lives and how much he has helped them.
For me the concept of an "archetype" the way Peterson and Campbell and Estes use it evokes a sense of power and meaning stretching back through time, possibly even into our biology. Maybe that's a bit dramatic, but the concept is important to me because there's a difference between an archetypal story and "just a story". There are lots of books and movies that are crap, then there are movies like Star Wars that tap into something archetypal.

In terms of learning about morality I don’t know if just any story will do and that’s an important distinction to make. There is something about those stories that make them compelling and connect with people. So it’s not that there is a story and you find an ‘archetype’ inside them (which is kind of the Jung school of thought – everything can be reduced to some ‘type’ or other, or mix of them. He’s been criticized on that too) rather that the ‘archetype’ is a descriptor for the element in it that is so appealing. Another thing is that the idea of archetypes goes back to Plato’s Theory of Forms , so it’s not a radical new idea that Jung came up with. I remember reading somewhere that he actually stole most of his ideas on that from others but haven’t been able to find it again.

I’ve always understood archetypes to mean “a constantly recurring symbol or motif in literature, painting, etc” but didn’t get too deep into Jung aside from some stuff on dream interpretation until Peterson came along and what I read in MDR. But his interpretation seemed more in line with the dictionary meaning more than Jung’s definition. As for these stories, myths, etc. I think that generally people have no idea of it being either an archetypal or historical thing. It’s just a made up story that survived. Yet survived it did, and so I wonder what makes those in particular endure?

From what I gather, it’s that these stories are about both the history behind them as well as the message Peterson elucidates. Maybe to look at it in a more general way, I think that Plato with his forms and Jung with the ‘collective unconscious’ were attempts to define what I see as ‘the information field’. Cataclysmic events seem to be a fundamental part of the universe and would be deeply embedded as part of its structure. These archetypes are representational of main ‘themes’ or motifs that illustrate how throughout human history certain behaviours allowed people to navigate the chaos. Not only navigate, but as a precursor to behaviours that also cause it. Going deeper, one can also see elements of higher dimensional influences in there too.

But if they were simply just historical accounts they wouldn’t have survived the ages alone on that fact. Something more than just ‘history’ had to be embedded in them. After everything was destroyed a story was created in order to find some meaning from them, and to try to figure out was caused it and how to avoid it. And it had to appeal to people so that the story would be shared. The elements that survived were the most important and ones that people already knew but couldn’t quite put into words. By hearing it you would implicitly understand the essential meaning. I think that is what allowed the story to carry. They contained truths about the nature of reality but one had to look carefully and pay attention. The ancient myths and legends carried knowledge that demonstrated not just guidelines for a way of being but also that we are not at the top of the food chain and easily at the mercy of higher forces. For their time, it may have been understood as ‘gods’ but perhaps it was really telling us about hyperdimensional things.

But nowadays people seem to have lost for a large part the ability to infer such things from these stories. So Peterson lays it all out, explicitly and in detail. He extracts the essentials and relates it back to them, in context for the average person. Well, at least part of the story. I guess that’s better than nothing. Perhaps it’s also that the conditions of this particular time dictate this approach and for the majority, maybe that’s enough. So while we might not need ‘archetypes’ for the stories themselves, it is still a component that allows it to propagate and endure the test of time. Both are required. OSIT.

So, in a sense, the concept of archetypes is a good way to think about 4D and higher. Ra referred to them as "social memory complexes."

Here’s a couple of interesting bits from Ra on “social memory complex”:

Questioner: At what stage does a planet achieve social memory?

Ra: I am Ra.

A mind/body/spirit social complex becomes a social memory complex
when its entire group of entities are of one orientation or seeking.

The group memory lost to the individuals in the roots of the tree of mind then becomes known to the social complex, thus creating a social memory complex.

The advantages of this complex are
the relative lack of distortion in understanding the social beingness and
the relative lack of distortion in pursuing the direction of seeking,

for all understanding/distortions are available to the entities of the society.


Questioner: Can you tell me what is the purpose or philosophy behind the fourth, fifth, and sixth-density positive and negative social memory complexes?

Ra: I am Ra. The basic purpose of a social memory complex is that of evolution.

Beyond a certain point the evolution of spirit is quite dependent upon the understanding of self and other-self as Creator.

This constitutes the basis for social complexes.

When brought to maturity, they become social memory complexes.

The fourth density and sixth density find these quite necessary.

The fifth positive
uses social memory in attaining wisdom, though this is done individually.

In fifth negative
much is done without aid of others.

So this might be a bit of a ramble and may not make much sense but I thought I'd throw it out there. So something that I was thinking about was how Sheldrake’s theories on morphic fields could be related to this. What his theory doesn’t seem to answer is how these collective memories of an organism would be formed in the first place. But if this information is already present in higher levels, then the archetype is the ‘form’ of that particular ‘thought’ or energy expressing itself at lower levels. It can be anything from physical form, behaviours and even ideas and would be framed around what preceded previous groups and whatever progress was made by them... that includes both STS and STO groups. And this framing built upon what was common with each evolution in the group would form a recurring pattern and maybe is what sets the criteria for archetype. From our pov – we are attracted to these things because they provide a connection to higher realities and (for at least half the population, ie souled beings) this connection is implicitly known although they can’t formulate a way to actually describe it. When we see these archetypal connections in stories and events, we find them interesting and engaging and thus drawn to them over something that doesn't contain any of these elements.
There is a movie called A Dangerous Method A Dangerous Method (2011) - IMDb a biography about Jung's methods, that pretty much covers the Otto Gross influencing Jung to become adulterer engaging in sado-mazo relationship with his patient who was obsessed with Aryans. I wondered how come Nazis left Jung alone.

Had also seen this film, which was a David Cronenberg film (strange film director as he is). And this brought up Jung's patient/lover/marriage/colleague - the Russian, Sabina Spielrein, and later her work as a psychoanalysts; sometimes earlier as a go-between with Freud and Jung. So, perhaps to look at Jung one might also need to look at Spielrein? There was certainly a trio of exchanges between them for many years.

There is not a great deal written about her and she seemed to followed the Freudian track later, yet do not know exactly in what all directions.
Sabina Spielrein - Wikipedia

Between Freud and Spierein, there was this:

At the time, Freud was tolerant of what happened between Jung and Spielrein, and regarded it as an example of countertransference. Later, he confessed to Spielrein that it had played a part in the schism between him and Jung: "His behavior was too bad. My opinion changed a great deal from the time I received that first letter from you". The relationship between Jung and Spielrein demonstrated to Freud that a therapist's emotions and humanity could not be kept out of the psychoanalytic relationship. Jung had come to the same conclusion. Before this episode, Freud apparently believed that a doctor could numb his emotions when analyzing patients. When Jung came to Freud about his relationship with Spielrein, Freud changed his ideas about the relationship between doctor and patient. Spielrein herself seems to have regarded her experiences with Jung as overall more beneficial than otherwise. She continued to yearn for him for several years afterwards, and wrote to Freud that she found it harder to forgive Jung for leaving the psychoanalytic movement than for "that business with me".

In Russia, her work is followed. For instance, there was her work at Dyetski Dom;

"Founded in 1921 by Vera Schmidt (who had also been one of Freud's students), the "Dyetski Dom" was intended to teach children based on Freud's theories. The school was only an orphanage in name: along with Schmidt's own son, the school had children from prominent Bolsheviks (including Joseph Stalin, whose son Vasily Stalin was enrolled as well). Use of discipline was avoided and children were allowed maximum freedom of movement. Sexual exploration and curiosity was also permitted. Spielrein's involvement included supervision of the teachers, and she may have supported them in a protest about their poor conditions of work, which led to their dismissal. The school had to close in 1924, in the wake of accusations of experiments to stimulate the children's sexuality prematurely. The accusations were possibly made in response to attempts by Leon Trotsky to proletarianize the school's intake. During Spielrein's time in Moscow, both Alexander Luria and Lev Vygotsky came to work at the Psychoanalytic Institute and "Dyetski Dom" and studied with her. Spielrein's characteristic way of combining subjective psychological ideas from psychoanalysis with objective observational research of children is likely to have been an important influence in their early formation as researchers, leading them to become the foremost Russian psychologists of their time.

On Freud:

In 1929 she presented a vigorous defense of Freud and psychoanalysis at a congress of psychiatry and neuropathology in Rostov, possibly the last person to mount such a defense at a time when psychoanalysis was on the point of being proscribed in Russia. The paper also made it clear that she was up-to-date with developments in the west, and included sympathetic comments on the approach of Sandor Ferenczi, who was advocating a more emotional engaged role on the part of the therapist. She also talked of the importance of clinical supervision for psychological work with children, and described an approach to short term therapy that could be used when resources did not allow for extensive treatment. Her niece Menikha described her from the 1930s as "a very well mannered, friendly and gentle person. At the same time, she was tough as far as her convictions were concerned.

She had also worked with Jean Piaget at the Rousseau Institute in Geneva:

While she was there, Jean Piaget also joined the staff: they collaborated closely, and in 1921 he went into an eight-month analysis with her. In 1922, she and Piaget both delivered papers at the seventh congress of the International Psychoanalytical Association in Berlin. This was one of the most productive periods of her life, and she published twenty papers between 1920 and 1923. The most important of these was a new version of the paper she had given at the Hague on the origins of language, drawing on her collaboration with the linguist Charles Bally. Entitled "The origins of the words 'Papa' and 'Mama'", she described how language develops on a substrate of genetic readiness, first through interactions between the child and the mother's breast, and then through family and social interactions. Her other papers from the time are mainly devoted to bring psychoanalytic thought together with observational studies of child development,. Her papers in the Zeitschrift and Imago from this time mainly focus on the importance of speech acquisition in early childhood and the sense of time. However, Otto Fenichel singled out for special mention her 1923 article on voyeurism, where “Sabina Spielrein described a peeping perversion in which the patient tried to overcome an early repression of genital and manual erotogeneity, provoked by an intense castration fear”. Overall, her work during this period is thought to have had considerable influence on Piaget's thought, and possibly on Klein's.

One Lance Owen speculates that "that Spielrein played a seminal role in Jung's personal psychological development, his understanding of love, and his subsequent formation of core psychological conceptualizations about "anima" and "transference."

And today "followers of feminist and relational psychoanalysis are also beginning to claim her as an important progenitor. A milestone in reclaiming Spielrein as an original thinker was reached during the 2015 congress of the American Psychoanalytic Association, when the opening plenary lecture was given by Dr Adrienne Harris, on "The clinical and theoretical contributions of Sabina Spielrein", crediting her with pioneering relational psychoanalysis."

One of her papers 'Destruction as the Cause of Coming Into Being' can be found here:
Having finished Jung, and not quite in the frame of mind to go back to evolutionary biology/genetics, I started "Challenging Postmodernism: Philosophy and the Politics of Truth" by David Detmer. Most interesting in just the first 50 pages. Anyway, the postmodernist takeover of the world which appears to be continuing apace despite the objections of the masses of people, caused me to recall a few things from Cs sessions in relation to this discussion of the work of Jung.

From 4 May 1996:

Q: (L) Could you list for us some of the most common uses of warfare?

A: Generation of environment to facilitate inconspicuous replacement of gene pool. Factors in paradigm shift through stimulation of conception activity, replacement of key personnel according to frequency vibration pre-readings...

Q: (TH) Who or what in the gene pool is being replaced? (TK) Whoever they want replaced. (L) Well, you know how it is in the movies... everybody is indiscriminately making love before they go into battle... (F) Yes... they said 'factors in paradigm shift through stimulation of conception activity...' (L) 'Replacement of key personnel according to frequency vibration pre-readings...' Okay: do you mean to say that war...

A: Creates "environment" for unnoticed genetic modifications because of greatly heightened exchange of both physical and ethereal factors.

From 21 Dec 1996:

Q: (A) Which part of a human extends into 4th density?

A: That which is effected by pituitary gland.

Q: (L) And what is that?

A: Psychic.

Q: (A) Are there some particular DNA sequences that facilitate transmission between densities?

A: Addition of strands.

Q: (L) How do you get added strands?

A: You don't get, you receive.

Q: (L) Where are they received from?

A: Interaction with upcoming wave, if vibration is aligned.

Q: (L) How do you know if this is happening?

A: Psychophysiological changes manifest.

From 1 Feb 1997:

Q: ... (L) Let me ask; is there going to be any attempt to further attack or harm us in any way?

A: Well, let us put it this way: the future is fluid, as you know. Knowledge protects you. But, it would be wise to picture these letters appearing on a screen somewhere, at the same moment that they are uttered!

Q: (L) Is it the uttering that... (T) Uttering, or spelled on the board? (L) ...'the moment they are uttered'... is it the uttering that is the key. {The fact that I speak them aloud.}

A: Does not matter, in all reality. The key is what the expectation is as to how they are intended to be put to use.

{Discussion about outside monitoring possibilities.}

Q: ... (L) Is there an internal configuration or frequency level that makes it so that the persons who are selected to do this monitoring, or to be involved in any of this kind of activity, such as you have described, as in the words appearing on the screen, etc., so that they are definitely selected because of their STS orientation?

A: This process takes place naturally. Now, a warning for you. Frequency resonance modulations of vibration rate can be altered or modified from outside if one is not cautious and/or aware enough, and thus takes necessary precautions.

From 15 April 2000:

Q: (L) ... A lot of people are writing to me about dreams lately. They seem to be having a lot of dreams about beings in the sky, entering our reality. All kinds of strange things.

A: Beings come and go at will always, it is the awareness that is expanding.

Q: (L) Another trend of the dreams is being pursued, attacked, split up from their families, being put in concentration camps - just all kinds of things.

A: All are possible futures, just wait and see. There is an alien race that has plans to replace your physical vehicles with a new "model."

Q: (L) What are they going to do with the old models?

A: "Retire them."

Q: (T) Which race is this?

A: Orion STS.

Q: (L) Is this essentially what happened with Neanderthal?

A: Yup!
Q: (L) And, of course, we can't depend on any of the dating methods because of metamorphosis.

A: And genetic manipulation.

Q: (L) So, in effect, we ARE the new Neanderthals on the eve of extinction. You have said that those who transition into 4th density in the body will go through some kind of rejuvenation process or body regeneration or something. Does that mean that these present "Neanderthal" type bodies that we presently occupy will morph into something more in line with the new model? Is it genetically encoded into some of them to do so?

A: Something like that.

Q: (L) So, that's why they have been following certain bloodlines for generation after generation; they are tinkering with the DNA and arming genetic time-bombs that are waiting to go off. (A) What is interesting is how do those who are trying to get these people, to abduct them, how do they spot them? How do they get the information? By following the bloodline, or by some kind of monitor you can detect from a long distance - and they can note that "here is somebody of interest" or "here is somebody dangerous" or "let's abduct this one" or whatever. How do they select? Do they search the genealogies or is it some kind of remote sensing?

A: Now this is interesting Arkadiusz, as it involves the atomic "signature" of the cellular structure of the individual. In concert with this is the etheric body reading and the frequency resonance vibration. All these are interconnected, and can be read from a distance using remote viewing technology/methodology.

Q: (L) Can it be done in a pure mechanical way without using psychic means?

A: At another level of understanding, the two are blended into one.

Q: (T) Computerized psychic remote viewing, maybe. Like artificial intelligence. Maybe a mind connected to a computer?

A: That is close, yes.

From 22 Jul 2000:

Cs: Suggest a review of the transcripts relating to the situation in Nazi Germany for better understanding here. ... We wish to review some things first. The concept of a "master race" put forward by the Nazis was merely a 4th density STS effort to create a physical vehicle with the correct frequency resonance vibration for 4th density STS souls to occupy in 3rd density. It was also a "trial run" for planned events in what you perceive to be your future. ... Frequency resonance vibration! Very important.

Q: (L) So, that is why they are programming and experimenting? And all these folks running around who some think are "programmed," could be individuals who are raising their nastiness levels high enough to accommodate the truly negative STS 4th density - sort of like walk-ins or something, only not nice ones?

A: You do not have very many of those present yet, but that was, and still is, the plan of some of the 4th density STS types.

Follow up to the above came 5 Aug 2000:

Q: ... Okay, last session you brought up the subject of Frequency Resonance Vibration. You suggested that there are certain STS forces who are developing or creating or managing physical bodies that they are trying to increase the frequency in so that they will have bodies that are wired so that they can manifest directly into 3rd density, since that seems to be the real barrier that prevents an all-out invasion, the fact that we are in 3rd density and they are in 4th. Now, I assumed that the same function could be true for STO individuals. It seems that many individuals who have come into this time period from the future, coming back into the past via the incarnational cycle so as not to violate free will, have carefully selected bodies with particular DNA, which they are, little by little, activating so that their 4th density selves, or higher, can manifest in this reality. Is it possible for those energies to manifest into such bodies which have been awakened or tuned in 3rd density?

A: STO tends to do the process within the natural flow of things. STS seeks to alter creation processes to fit their ends.

From 23 Feb 2002:

Q: (L) Anybody have any wrap up questions? (R) Yeah. I have one completely unrelated. (L) Go ahead. (R) It relates to this girl I was communicating on the net. I was just wondering if she was just doing all of that [crazy manipulating] on her own or if she was just being helped.

A: FRV robot. You will encounter many more in times to come.

Q: (L) FRV Frequency resonance vibration. (R) The question still is: if she was doing it on her own or if she was being controlled. (L) Well, FRV robots are being controlled. They can download an agent into anybody at any time.

12 Jun 2008:

Q: ... (Joe) Is someone without an emotional center very susceptible to being possessed or "walked into"?

A: No. What self-respecting "spook" would want to eat at a restaurant that serves food made of air? Like stone soup before the neighbors came.

Q: (L) In other words, possession is a quality [process] of eating emotions. There have to be emotions. (Anna) What drives them {individual without emotional center}, then?

A: Pure "nature". That's why there is so strong a bodily resonance. In a strange way they are more closely connected to the "divine stuff" of creation than you are. The sex center is directly connected with that heavy sleeping matter that just "loves to be loved" and creative.

Q: (Anna) What exactly is bodily resonance? (L) Is it something like limbic resonance?

A: Close but not exactly. It is similar to a forced vibration. When a creature with those properties is in proximity to wounded or weakened prey they can force the weakened body to their own frequency. Imagine a violin that has no music emanating. Then imagine some primitive string stretched taut. When it is plucked strongly, it doesn't matter how the violin is tuned. It will respond, and produce distortions of its true sound.
A: Close but not exactly. It is similar to a forced vibration. When a creature with those properties is in proximity to wounded or weakened prey they can force the weakened body to their own frequency. Imagine a violin that has no music emanating. Then imagine some primitive string stretched taut. When it is plucked strongly, it doesn't matter how the violin is tuned. It will respond, and produce distortions of its true sound.

That is diabolical but furiously interesting at the same time! The weakening of the population at multiple levels then forced oscillations and presto, mission accomplished.

Somebody remind me, why did I sign up for this again?
That is diabolical but furiously interesting at the same time! The weakening of the population at multiple levels then forced oscillations and presto, mission accomplished.

Somebody remind me, why did I sign up for this again?

Yeah, I ask that now and again myself. Geeze, what good is it for us to sit here and look at all this stuff, see what the puzzle pieces are, how they fit together, and go "wow!" ???

And, along that line, I think if we look at Lobaczewski's discussion bits here and there about the influence of schizoid psychopaths, we'll find a good description of both Freud's and Jung's work and how they influence others. Same for the post-modernist types.
WOW... just finished reading this. Interesting stuff first Gurdjieff now Jung who's next, looking forward to hear what the C,s have to say. Never really got into Jung's stuff, just wasn't drawn to it. Thanks for the book recommendations.
Having a conversation with some friends yesterday about ponerology, the consistently anti-psychological nature of many schizotypal/psychopathic ideologies came up. I wouldn't necessarily call Freud and Jung anti-psychological outright, but they definitely got a lot of things wrong in ways that allowed themselves and their "followers" (what an odd term to describe peers in a scientific field) to be vectored. These fads caused people to develop false beliefs and artificial psychological growths and complexes that could definitely be construed as possession from a perspective.

I want to share an aside about a friend I've known for a long time. He was always a long-standing fan of Jung, but is very much a believer in anarcho-communism. He really really seems to dislike Jordan Peterson, saying he really misunderstands the Frankfurt School, postmodernism, etc. I haven't read enough into those schools or history to definitively say they were consciously looking for another way to enslave humanity ideologically, even though that's how it appears to be turning out. I just found it kind of odd that, as a major fan of Jung, my friend seemed to denigrate probably the largest proponent of (at least some) of Jung's ideas in the contemporary culture.
  • Like
Reactions: luc
Yes, and J. Peterson warns rather strongly about separating oneself from that pervasive and universal impulse (however, I don't know if the following is Jungian, or just his own 'traditionalist' view). Peterson said about marriage:

Clearly, he seems to suggest following that energy, but in a proper/humble way -- in a way that ensures the healthy continuation of individuals and society.

We are long past that point how the things are going and will continue going. It is enough to just look around in environment, not reading stuff happening over there, but seeing it here.

The more time passes and I take stock of the reality of the human condition, the more I tend to "lower the bar" on what any of us can, or can be expected to, achieve in terms of 'spiritual awakening'. As 3,000 years of philosophy can be boiled down to: "do what's in front of you every day. Have an aim. Don't run away from lessons, but stand in the fire and learn from them. Don't sweat the big stuff, because you're really not that important".

If it was so easy it would have been done already in the past globally.
That is diabolical but furiously interesting at the same time! The weakening of the population at multiple levels then forced oscillations and presto, mission accomplished.

Somebody remind me, why did I sign up for this again?
Because you have much needed Lessons to learn, genero. Apparently its fun - if adjusted to the 'correct' mindset.
Because you have much needed Lessons to learn, genero. Apparently its fun - if adjusted to the 'correct' mindset.

That's one way of looking at it. Another way, that sort of incorporates the "learning is fun" bit is that it is evolutionary: those who "get it" figure out what to do and survive.

If you think about "seeing the unseen" from an evolutionary standpoint, that's what it does: enhances survival. Reminds me of the following:

9 Aug 1997
Q: I don't think I am in a vacuum of awareness. Now, this Jason Dunlap is printing a lot of stuff that reminds me of the Hale Bopp incident. There is a lot being said about the sightings out in the South West area. They are saying that this is the 'new' imminent invasion or mass landing. Can you comment on this activity?

A: Prelude to the biggest "flap" ever.

Q: And where will this flap be located?

A: Earth.

Q: When is it going to begin?

A: Starting already.

Q: Is this biggest flap going to be just a flap, or is it going to be an invasion?

A: Not yet.

Q: Not an invasion?

A: Yes.

Q: So, it will just be inciting people to frenzies of speculation...

A: Invasion happens when programming is complete...

Q: What programming?

A: See Bible, "Lucid" book, Matrix Material, "Bringers of the Dawn," and many other sources, then cross reference...

Q: Well, if something is fairly imminent, we are not gonna have time to do all the things you have suggested that we do!

A: Yes you will, most likely.

Q: Well, we are supposed to build a pool, a maze, a psychomantium, to build a database, get a Nobel Prize... a LOT of things in the works here.... This just sort of takes the heart right out of me!

A: Not so!

Q: Well, are we going to have time to do all these things?

A: All these things were suggested for this reason, among others.

Q: So, all the things you have suggested are to get us ready for this event?

A: Yes.

Q: Well, we better get moving! We don't have time to mess around!

A: You will proceed as needed, you cannot force these events or alter the Grand Destiny.

Q: I do NOT like the sound of that! I want to go home!

A: The alternative is less appetising.

Q: Sure! I don't want to be lunch!

A: Reincarnation on a 3rd density earth as a "cave person" amidst rubble and a glowing red sky, as the perpetual cold wind whistles...

Q: Why is the sky glowing red?

A: Contemplate.

Q: Of course! Comet dust! Sure, everybody knows THAT! Wonderful!!! Anything further?

A: Stay tuned for all pertinent information.

And the above was over 20 years ago. The Cs were right, only we couldn't yet see what was going on right under our noses.
@whitecoast, that your Jungian friend is into the postmodernists isn't so surprising I think because in a sense, the postmodernist intellectuals can't really be separated from the psychoanalytic movement, as I wrote above.

I read an article yesterday that sheds some light on these connections:

It's a hit piece against Jordan Peterson written by a 'Lacanian' and it's very interesting because the guy knows a lot about the psychoanalysts. His twisted logic goes something like this: Postmodernism, which Peterson so much dreads, is intrinsincally connected to psychoanalysis (including Jung), and Jordan Peterson is actually worse than the postmodernists in his twisted, cult-like radicalism. It goes to show that the author has no clue what JP is about and doesn't "get it" at all - his attack is entirely motivated by his anti-capitalist feelings.

Nonetheless, especially the first half of the article is interesting and shows the crazy, schizoid nature of the psychoanalyst movement and its deadly consequences. Maybe I would go so far as to say the whole 60's movement, the whole radical-lefty thing with feminism, identity politics, destruction of the family, values etc. as it played out over the decades wouldn't have been possible without Freud & Jung and the movement they have inspired.

Here's the beginning of the article:

Sometime between 1922 and 1939, James Joyce wrote the following cryptic passage in his equally cryptic book, Finnegan’s Wake:

Be who, farther potential? and so wider but we grisly old Sykos who have done our unsmiling bit on ’alices, when they were yung and easily freudened, in the penumbra of the procuring room and what oracular comepression we have had apply to them!​

What on earth did Joyce mean? Most scholars are in agreement that this passage is aimed at psychoanalysts. Joyce calls them “Sykos,” the Greek term for “fig” that makes up half of the term “sycophant,” which means, literally, “revealer of figs.” Sycophants were litigants in ancient Greece that brought unjustified prosecutions to the court. They were, in short, false accusers. Joyce seems to be saying that psychoanalysts are seedy, “grisly old” men who use false testimony against young women when they are “yung and easily freudened” in order to lure them into their “procuring room.” Say what you will of the literary and moral merits of James Joyce, he certainly seems to have understood psychoanalysis.

Joyce formed his conception of psychoanalysis rather early on, before the movement had become properly institutionalized. He was ahead of his time in this regard. When Joyce was writing, psychoanalysis was identified as a radical movement that sought to demolish bourgeois moral norms. This is, in fact, precisely what it was. Take, for example, Freud’s 1908 essay “‘Civilized’ Sexual Morality and Modern Nervous Illness,” where he writes:

Civilized sexual morality has still worse effects, for, by glorifying monogamy, it cripples the factor of selection by virility—the factor whose influence alone can bring about an improvement of the individual’s innate constitution, since in civilized peoples selection by vitality has been reduced to a minimum by humanity and hygiene [emphasis in the original].

Freud and his followers were promoting a system of ideas that directly attacked bourgeois and Christian sexual morality, together with the family, in favor of a quasi-Darwinian struggle of the vitalistic sexual will. Why then did Joyce, also a cultural radical, attack these doctrines? The answer seems to be that Joyce sensed in Freudianism a new form of authority that he was afraid would replace the throne and altar of yesteryear, and he wanted to head it off before it gained institutional traction.

After the Second World War, psychoanalysis certainly did gain institutional traction. Psychoanalysts, in a very real way, became the moral policemen of Western society. The more radical elements of Freudian doctrine were hidden from view—either in the dry “ego psychology” of Freud’s daughter or beneath layers of New Age mythologizing in the work of Freud’s would-be heir Carl Jung. But at bottom the doctrine still contained the worship and “liberation” of the instincts sold to the buyer under the aegis of “self-actualization.”

The cultural radicals of the postwar era saw the new institutionalized and partly sanitized psychoanalysis as something that needed to be overturned. Yet they also saw in psychoanalytic doctrine radical ideas that could be appropriated. Jacques Derrida, in an early essay entitled “Freud and the Scene of Writing,” borrows from Freud’s essay on the mystic writing pad to form the basis for his own radical attack on Western philosophy. In their work Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia, Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guatteri appropriated Freudian psychoanalysis—mainly in its then-fashionable Lacanian transformation—to form a theoretical basis to attack traditional society through a process that they called “schizoanalysis.” Schizoanalysis was basically a means of encouraging people to totally ignore any conscientious scruples they had about their behavior and fully “actualize” their basest desires. In Britain, R. D. Laing appropriated psychoanalysis in his Sanity, Madness and the Family to argue that the family as an institution had to be dissolved.

What is my overarching point? Simply that psychoanalysis is a radical doctrine. The doctrine forms the basis of many of the theories that today are referred to as “postmodernism.” Even some of the activist language heard today on college campuses is a direct outgrowth of radicalized psychoanalytic ideas. The idea of “microaggressions,” for example, grows directly out of Deleuze and Guatteri’s notion of “micropolitics,” the idea that everyday cultural interactions should be politicized to further radical cultural goals. “Micropolitics” is grounded in the psychoanalytic idea—an idea that can be found in the original psychoanalytic writings—that society imposes “repressive” moral and cultural norms that damage the individual and do not allow him or her to “actualize” their innermost desires.

This is where we come to Jordan Peterson. Peterson has recently achieved surprising popularity precisely by attacking these postmodern ideas. At one level, Peterson appears to be rallying disaffected and intellectually unmoored young men under a culturally reactionary flag. But this is a misreading. In fact, Peterson is pushing “soft” radical psychoanalytical ideas that seem tame when confronted with the violent “hard” radical ideas of the so-called postmodernists. This is probably what makes Peterson so popular. He is telling his audience that they can embrace modern, late-capitalist, hyper-individualized consumer culture, with its vitalistic quasi-Darwinian “will” ideology, while rejecting the same ideology pushed to its logical end point—that is, pushed to the actual violence that inevitably occurs when one will meets another with no mediation. Peterson, on this reading, is not a conservative; rather he is a pre-1960s cultural radical who is trying to channel the anger of his audience into the moral and economic jungle of a late capitalism that is falling apart under the weight of its own contradictions.
Last edited:
Top Bottom