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

Yep, and the "doom and gloom" and "catastrophic" thinking about things in general really doesn't seem to help. It just stresses us out and can leave us open to making wrong decisions. Of course, in the end, even if we make wrong decisions, it's all good, but I think we could all do with easing up on ourselves a little and trusting that we will do the best we can, especially with the feedback available from others here. If we do that, with the awareness that what we do really isn't going to be that 'earth shattering' or important in the grand scheme of things, then we can get on with learning the "simple and karmic" lessons as they come and not sweat the big stuff.

Basically, chill out people! We've got enough on our plates with the job of simply living and dealing with the normal everyday vicissitudes of life.
Fair enough, Joe... Far be it from me to wantonly add any such an unnecessary capacity for burden or hindrance - as I do so solemnly recognize you guys are most certainly at the forefront of the 'Great Battle' manifesting here on Planet:3D Earth. I will Learn to let the chips fall where they may...

Keep fighting the good fight! :rockon:
Thanks for all these information on the history of CGJ. I did some research on Jung philosophy a few years ago and as others stated it also did not resonated with me. I hopped on JBP train in January and and ordered a few books which I have not read. I have however, listened to several hours of audio version of Jung philosophy. I had just restarted last week to go deeper in trying to get a grip of his writings. I became very curious when I realise that Jung and Freud both had fainting spells .
I am so happy to be a part of this networking group. I can now continued on my search for more truth in other subjects areas. All will be well. Life is all about lessons.
Yep, and the "doom and gloom" and "catastrophic" thinking about things in general really doesn't seem to help. It just stresses us out and can leave us open to making wrong decisions. Of course, in the end, even if we make wrong decisions, it's all good, but I think we could all do with easing up on ourselves a little and trusting that we will do the best we can, especially with the feedback available from others here. If we do that, with the awareness that what we do really isn't going to be that 'earth shattering' or important in the grand scheme of things, then we can get on with learning the "simple and karmic" lessons as they come and not sweat the big stuff.

Basically, chill out people! We've got enough on our plates with the job of simply living and dealing with the normal everyday vicissitudes of life.

I absolutely agree and goes also in the direction of what Jordan B. Peterson in 12 Rules for Life and many other people already said:

“It is my firm belief that the best way to fix the world—a handyman’s dream, if ever there was one—is to fix yourself”
Perhaps what "we" collectively are doing, have done, will do is actually the manisfestation of 'rewriting the program'?

It was hardly happenstance that Laura took the path she did and that those of us seeking truth & knowledge became aware of her and her experiment? But at this stage of the game, we probably do need to focus on "going with the flow". If we try to force it - or fret ourselves into a tizzy - it will just be an unproductive waste of energy. Of course, being painfully aware of all that's going on is mightly hard not to fret about. But then, we know 'learning our lessons' was never meant to be easy.

Imagine the universe beautiful and just and perfect.
Then be sure of one thing:
The Is has imagined it quite a bit better than you have.

Richard Bach
Illusions: The Adventures of a Reluctant Messiah
I almost finished the book (found Russian translation) and what the author describes is pretty disturbing.

It appears that Jung indeed had other things in mind when he was talking about "archetypes", "animus", "anima", "shadow", "persona" etc. compared to how they are interpreted nowadays.

It looks like that without support of his "star followers" (Jung was in constant "battle" with Freud and his movement after the break-up with Freud to gain support of rich and influential people to promote his ideas in the English-speaking world) he probably would have never gained so much popularity. One of them was Edith Rockefeller McCormick was daughter of John Davison Rockefeller. In 1913 she travelled to Zurich to be treated for depression by Carl Jung and contributed generously to the Zürich Psychological Society. She financed the building of the Psychological Society as well translations of Jung's works into English and all these for the money of her father who "being baptist didn't support these activities" but gave her money anyway.

And then there is a disturbing story about relationship of Sabina Spielrein with Carl Jung. From the review of the book Sabina Spielrein: The Woman and the Myth by Angela Sells:
Raped By Carl Jung, Then Murdered by the Nazis

But the theft and erasure of Sabina Spielrein’s intellectual legacy by the psychoanalytic establishment may be an even more troubling crime
By Phyllis Chesler


At the time, in 1970, I laughed in disbelief at the accusation/diagnosis from the audience—and began writing Women and Madness on the plane home from Miami. It would become a best seller. It even had a chapter that was hailed by other feminists as a “pioneering” exposé of sex between patient and therapist. Yet I had no idea that Spielrein’s analyst, Carl Gustav Jung, had deflowered her when she was one of his hospitalized patients and most needed his help.

This “affair”—this crime—was wrongfully immortalized on screen in David Cronenberg’s 2011 film A Dangerous Method. Keira Knightley plays Spielrein, Michael Fassbender plays Jung, and Viggo Mortensen plays Freud. The film does not convey the fact that Spielrein is a lot more than a “crazy” patient, nor do a number of plays about her, nor do ever so many learned treatises that all reduce the then-19-year-old to a permanent 19-year-old—or, as Sells phrases it, to an “ever-patient,” an “uber” patient, one who is continually and retroactively diagnosed, demonized, and diminished as “schizophrenic.”

According to Sells—and I agree with her analysis—in addition to her sister’s death, Spielrein was most probably a victim of childhood sexual abuse at her father’s hands. In Sells’ view, Sabina was hospitalized because of this abuse. According to Sells (and Spielrein), her breakdown was a“reaction to her father’s abuse which began at age 4.”

“In a 1909 letter to her mother [Spelrein writes]: ‘I fell in love with a psychopath [Jung], and is it necessary to explain why? I have never seen my father as normal.’ Spielrein further says to her mother that she and Jung ‘acted’ at times as caretakers for each other and that Jung’s behavior of raging, weeping, and jubilant prostration mimicked her own experience of her parents: ‘Remember how dear daddy was apologizing to you exactly in the same manner!’ Her equation of Jung to her father perhaps belies a subtle allusion to her experience of the affair as a form of continued abuse.”

According to Sells, in a private interview, Spielrein described what Jung, her treating physician, did to her as “rape.” In 1910, Spielrein writes: “Good God, if only he [Jung] had an inkling of how much I have suffered on his account and still suffer! … I am ashamed that I have wasted so much time. Courage. Ah, yes—courage.”

In 1972, I published Women and Madness. It had one chapter about sex between patient and therapist. Both clinicians and reviewers challenged the information I presented: “These women are making it up. They are mentally ill. How can you believe them?” And: “If anything happened they themselves wanted it to happen, they seduced their therapists and now when things have not turned out their way, they are crying ‘Foul.’ ”

This is exactly what clinicians used to say when female patients alleged incest; exactly what everyone used to say when women alleged rape or sexual harassment. Although I had done interviews and tried to research this subject, I am struck by how little I really knew about the history of this sordid subject among psychoanalysts and their patients.

I did not know how hard Spielrein fought against concepts such as penis envy back in 1912 and that she — not Jung, not Freud — was the one who first proposed the existence of mythic archetypes in the human unconscious and the existence of a death wish which, as she understood it, was about death and rebirth. Spielrein also began to chart the psychological relationship between mothers and daughters, the nature of female sexuality, and the origin of human speech.

Imagine if such work had never been disappeared. Imagine if Spielrein’s brief stint as a patient had not been used forever after to denigrate her as a “crazy” woman who fell in love with her psychoanalyst and “forced” him to cure her via a dangerous method known as the “love cure.”

Sounds shady, doesn’t it? There she was, a 19-year-old probable incest victim, (who was therefore often retroactively diagnosed as a “borderline personality” or as “schizophrenic”), who had experienced a “breakdown” of some kind in response to years of childhood abuse coupled with the recent death of her younger sister—and there he was, at the famed Burgholzli Clinic, the Aryan God-in-formation, who abused his power over Sabina when she was at her most vulnerable. (Granted, Jung himself was only 27 at the time but the power difference between them was real and significant.)

Jung’s was a criminal and extremely unethical act; perhaps it was the act of a selfish sociopath, who took advantage of what psychoanalysts have termed “transference.” Who but a sociopath would propose an openly polygamous union and living arrangement that would include his wife? Sabina wisely, sanely, turned him down. However, this in-patient’s (mis)treatment ended in eight months.

Sells stresses that Spielrein was pronounced “cured,” by none other than Eugen Bleuler. Although her on-and-off-again relationship with Jung continued for some time, both on an outpatient basis and then as a doctoral student, Spielrein put this “love cure”/affair/victimization entirely behind her and went on to obtain a doctorate in psychiatry. Her dissertation adviser was Jung, of course.

Apparently, Jung had a “thing” for Jewish girls. In 1910, Spielrein writes in her diary that “he [Jung] would love a black-complexioned Jewish girl,” and that as much as he wished to remain “close to his religion and culture,” he desired “liberation from his paternal responsibilities in an unbelieving Jewess.”

As Spielrein suspected and as Jung admitted to Freud, “The Jewess [has] popped up in another form, in the shape of my patient [Spielrein].” According to Sells, Jung had had a previous relationship with another Jewish woman. Spielrein intuited that she may be Jung’s “psycho-sexual replacement.”

Taking his eroticized anti-Semitism to a whole new level, Jung confronts Spielrein about why the Jews are marginalized: “… (the Jew) is the murderer of his own prophets, even of his Messiah.”


Jung’s contemporaries refused to blame him, although Freud did. As recently as 2010, John Haule excused Jung’s transgression by invoking John Kerr to normalize it: “Jung was scarcely the only person to become involved with a patient. Gross’ exploits were legendary, Stekel had long enjoyed a reputation as a ‘seducer.’ Jones was paying blackmail money to a former patient, while noted colleague Otto Rank famously began an affair with his patient, Anaïs Nin.” Sells cites my own work on this issue to bolster her argument and I am grateful to her.

Yet Spielrein’s importance is hardly that of a patient, or an “Ever Patient.” She is a psychoanalytic pioneer, whose original ideas were “borrowed” by Jung and Freud, both with and without credit; and whose original ideas about female sexuality, death-and-rebirth, child psychology, and the importance of the mother-daughter relationship were utterly forgotten. As Sells ably demonstrates, Spielrein shifted rapidly away from Jung as a “love interest” as she began to worry about the possibility that he will “steal ideas from the research he has been reading.” Her fears were well-founded.

Spielrein writes:
I must admit that I greatly fear that my friend [Jung], who planned to mention my idea (of archetypes in our collective unconscious, about death-rebirth) in his article in July, saying that I have rights of priority, may simply borrow the whole development of the idea, because he now wants to refer to it as early as January. … How could I esteem a person who stole my ideas, who was not my friend but a petty, scheming rival? … I love him and I hate him.​

Interesting article about Jung.

Carl G. Jung. Man of Science or Modern Shaman?

By Richard and Linda Nathan
October 13, 2008

Author Dave Hunt once remarked that if a medicine man dressed in feathers and beads walked into a modern church, they would reject him, but if he were dressed in scientist's garb, they would warmly receive him. Unfortunately the former is debatable these days, but the latter is all too common.

A perfect illustration of this phenomenon is Swiss psychiatrist Carl G. Jung. Known among his intimate disciples as the “Hexenmeister of Zurich”—i.e., the Master Sorcerer—numerous Christians today welcome and apply his thinking. Some believe that because Jung’s father was a Lutheran pastor that Jung too was a Christian. Yet nothing could be further from the truth. Jung himself admitted privately to being a Gnostic and to borrowing elements of his thinking from ancient Gnosticism.

Many people find Jung fascinating because not only was he trained as a scientist, he also explored the strange, hidden areas of humanity—dreams, myths, imagination, and the occult. This gave his work an air of objectivity to a society enamored of science.

Anti-Christian Roots​

Yet Jung only offered the appearance of a scientific approach through his psychological system, for in actuality it carefully camouflaged religious and philosophical ideas disguised as science. This system in fact forms a major taproot of today’s New Age thought: occult mysticism disguised as psychological science.

Because many of Freud's and Jung's concepts are foundational to current New Age (or “interspirituality”) thinking, it is essential to understand that their popular schools of psychotherapy (often called dynamic psychiatry) are rooted in anti-Christian thought. Henri Ellenberger, psychiatrist and author of a massive history of dynamic or depth psychology, concludes that:

"It is impossible to overestimate Nietzsche's influence on dynamic psychiatry... Nietzsche may be considered the common source of Freud, Adler, and Jung."​

Frederick Nietzsche was an anti-Christian German philosopher who exalted paganism and the worship of instinct. Adolf Hitler and Nazism drank heavily from Nietzsche’s work.

Three well known figures in particular have popularized Jung’s work in the Church: Joseph Campbell; Morton Kelsey, an Episcopal priest and university professor, whose popular book The Other Side of Silence promotes Eastern meditation and occultism for Christians; and psychiatrist M. Scott Peck, author of The Road Less Traveled, which teaches that the unconscious is god.

Almost universally people regard Jung as a wise man—and in many churches a saint. Attack St. Paul and you'll be called thoughtful, but criticize Jung and you'll often be dubbed a "fundamentalist" (i.e., an ignorant bigot).

Borrowing the method of visualization or "active imagination" from ancient occultism, Jung dialogued with figures that appeared in his fantasies. He called them "archetypes" [meaning: first or original type] and assumed that they were parts of what he theorized was a personal or racial unconscious mind that had an independent existence and needed "integration" with his conscious mind. In earlier periods though, people would have called such phenomena demons. In fact, Jung even used the term daemon for them at times. One such "archetype" was an old "wise man" who called himself Philemon and who became Jung's "wise guide" and teacher.

The high point of this demon contact was an invasion of screaming, doorbell-ringing poltergeists into his house (observed by his family and servants) that only stopped when Jung compulsively wrote a treatise called The Seven Sermons to the Dead.

In true Gnostic fashion, Jung shared the book with close friends but hid it from the public. When a famous Jewish theologian, Martin Buber, happened upon it, he accused Jung of being a modern Gnostic. Jung vehemently denied it, claiming the book was only a "youthful frivolity," but in other places he called it central to all his later work.

This deceitfulness is typical, for he frequently wrote utter blasphemies then retreated into the guise of a humble scientist, "an Empiricist" as he called himself, merely observing the psychic, and not a theologian speaking of ultimates.

According to Stephan Hoeller in his book, The Gnostic Jung and The Seven Sermons to the Dead, Jung "knew that in his psychology he was putting forward an essentially Gnostic discipline of transformation in contemporary guise."

Jung's camouflage of occult mysticism as psychological science created a major taproot of today's New Age thought, also called “interspirituality.” His redefinition of religious reality as merely one element of the human psyche gives equal status to all religious views.

Numerous contemporary secular and Christianized psychotherapies based on false spiritual philosophies and practices have grown out of Jung’s system. In non-Christian settings these are often called individuation or self-actualization. Christians commonly call therapies embodying some or all of the above points "emotional" or "inner" healing. One especially prominent inner healing teacher was Agnes Sanford. The wife of an Episcopal minister, she combined Jung’s teachings with techniques from the Unity School of Christianity (a cult) and mind science to create a technique that is sweeping through countless churches, ranging from the Roman Catholic and Episcopal to Pentecostal and Evangelical.

Many Christians consider Jung a very wise man, and Biblical churches as well as liberal and liturgical churches use his techniques today.
So I have just skimed through the last C transcripts and am a little irritated by something. I have been following some of Jordan Petersons work and enjoyed his psychological take on the bible and other religious myths very much which had some really deep and fascinating stuff in it. Now I am also aware of the "war" between Peterson and what he calls the "postmodern radical left" which he percieves as attaking the basis of western society which he sees as being based on judeo-christian values (a very debatable stance from my perspective).

Now in a later session transcript the idea is put forth that the postmodernist thought of social contructivism especially in terms of gender has its origin in Jungian psychology which seems very odd to me as neither the radical left nor the postmodern thinkers seem to have any connection with Jungian Ideas. On the contrary the idea of archetypes and the collective unconsciouss seems to oppose anything postmodern thinkers try to propagate. If anything they should be considered more freudian than jungian in my view, but I am not an expert on the topic.

Add to this that Peterson who opposes the postmodernists does this on the very basis of Jungian Ideas and consideres himself a devout Jungian. So, although I have a very superficial understanding of postmodernism and Jungian psycology the proposition that postmodernism derives its ideas on gender from Jung makes no sense to me at all.
Hello SolarSoul,
You have given the reasons for your irritation already in your post. Have you been following the different forum discussions on the subject and related books? Without some background knowledge that allows connecting the dots, and by only skimming through transcripts, it's quite normal to be confused.
SolarSoul here is a thread that might help with some of your confusion: Carl Jung's Secret Life: "The Aryan Christ" - something rotten in Jungian psychology?

In that thread we see that Jung's 'therapy' was based on self-deification, or the attempt to become a god, and that he viewed it more in terms of a religious movement than a therapy or psychology per se. He used terms like archetype, collective unconscious, anima, and animus, as cover, more or less, for approaching these 'gods' and communicating with them, facilitating their control over himself and his clients. This is what the C's warn the 'postmodern movement' is attempting to do:

(L) So in other words, this whole left attempt to take over our world is sort of what 2nd Thessalonians referred to as man attempting to take the seat of god in the temple, so to speak?

A: Yes. The Beast.

Jung's system was, in its heyday, a potent cult which aimed to upend human values and return people to a state of 'free love' and barbarism. Among many others, the famous author Hermann Hesse was analyzed by Jung, and Jung claims to have played an influential role in a number of his works e.g. Hesse used Jung's worldview to inform Demian, Steppenwulf and Siddhartha. Hesse also had an experience of 'descending to the underworld' and being 'self-deified,' as did a number of other clients, which we have reason to suspect means 'being possessed by 4D STS'.

It is certainly ironic how enamored of Jung Jordan Peterson is, given the circumstances.
Indeed, if you aren't following discussions on the forum, you can be lost when reading the sessions which sometimes use those discussions as a platform.
I am not sure i have the right picture of what all these isms are. But it doesn't look too stretched for me that starting with the Jungian fascination and naive exploration of the inner worlds could end in something like a male guy honoring more his own feelings and wishes to have a female experience than honoring what he has been given by life and looking for what he could give to others.
You might also find the SOTT radio show mentioned here interesting.
Top Bottom