Has anybody here studied Jung? Especially his discussion of religion myth and the collective unconscious?

A good intro to the topic is a book about Jung called "ARYAN CHRIST." It's availabe from major bookstores. I think many of you anti-Christians would find it very very interesting,

I read a line by Jung that I cant forget. I paraphrase: We have considered Christianity myth for some time now. But isnt it time to start taking Christianity seriously as myth?

Joseph Campbell is another good one to read regarding mythology and collective unconscious. He draws from Jung and Freud. The Hero With a Thousand Faces is a good book, though Campbell loses me with some of his conclusions, namely that we're all the same beneath our respective mythologies and religions. I don't hold it against him. He's obviously never read Keith. Or MacDonald. Or Linder.

Jung didn't do enough research for his theories, like all the psychologists at that time, but his work is still interesting. He is right about the collective unconscious, I think, though this has been misinterpreted by many who believe he talked about some sort of supernatural link. On the contrary, he is merely describing an important part of nationalism: different peoples, different average personalities.

The Briggs-Myers Test is based on his thoughts on personalities, and can be found through a simple Google search. It is often used in job interviews (though I wouldn't myself use any personality tests if I were to hire someone -- hell, just talk to the candidates and you'll see what they are like). I am an INTJ according to that test, and I suspect that many other nationalists would be xNTx too.

I wrote an essay in junior high school on why Jung broke with Freud, after having been his most prominent disciple. Basically, Freud demanded complete subordination by those around him, and since he was wrong on so much it wasn't easy to be that kind of disciple. Nevertheless, when Jung heard that Freud had died in mouth cancer he wept for his old teacher. I wonder why noone has made a movie about that, though, since it is such a good story.

Now I hear that many of those around Freud were Jews, if not all, except for Jung. Can't have been too easy for Jung to work in that company. Why, the stench alone....

I'm not really interested in psychology. I'm interested in myth and legend and religion and what thinking about all of these can do for the preservation of our race. That's why I put Jung up here at the same time as Evola. Same sort of thing in many ways. Add Spengler to that list too-- as in Oswald.

I see you've read Aryan Christ and see why I have recommended it.

Actually it was Freud's Vienna followers that were mostly Jews. The Zurich followers, like Jung, were gentiles. Sadly, during WWII, Jung did train a number of Jew psychologists in Zurich.

And fucked many a hook-nosed kikess. And, once he saw which way the wind was blowing, came up with his own "pathologization" theory of NS.

On Jung's split with Freud, a main point of contention was the fact that Freud set up psychoanalysis as a sort of religion with all sorts of dogma, instead of empirical

My recollection is that the split was over (1) Freud's libido theory, which Jung correctly appraised as a (typical kike) obsession with sex, and (2) Freud's characteristic insecurities over Jung's ambition, which led him to pick the more obedient butt goy Ernest Jones as front man for the kike "movement." Jung was no more empirical than Freud. While his I/O dimension, later supplemented by Eysenck and others to become part of the standard 5 factor model of personality, has in fact been validated, Jung's contribution was neither tested nor testable at the time. That aside, Jung's technique of "active imagination" is hardly more scientific than Freud's "free association." Anthony Storr concludes both Jung and Freud were "gurus" comparable in ways to such luminaries as Jim Jones and David Koresh. To Jung's credit, he came closer to admitting it.

As I understand it, many psychologists nowadays simply focus on trying to cure insanity, not on finding its cause since it is so hard to determine. A much more humble approach then than what Freud and his boys were up to.

Still, I have read occasionally that a great deal of murderers and other violent people have undergone psychiatric treatment, and only afterward shown violent behavior. Discomforting, to say the least. One has to wonder if energizing walks are not a better cure for most psychic ills than talking one's head off in a shrink's office.


On Jung: I read somewhere that he had a vision of himself as a new "Aryan Christ" for a while, kind of the new guru for Europe. I suppose that was before being pro-White became unpopular.

Interesting comments, far better quality than I had expected. I can see there are a few brains here are not applying themselves. We should elevate the quality of debate at this forum.

There is a book in print in the US called "Aryan Christ" all about Jung's racial views. Yes it is sort of a denunciation of him, but that works in reverse for us sometimes doesnt it? Kind of like those books by Prof Nicholas Goodriche Clark? Who does he think buys them?

As far as Jung not being empirical, he was as scientific as the psychology (which isn't, by it's nature, very scientific to begin with) deemed possible.

compare:

You should check out "The Portable Jung" as well, especially for the last essay in the book called "An Answer to Job" in which Jung attempts to reconcile not just the story of Job, but Christianity as a whole from a mythological/psychological (they're essiantially the same for Jung) satndpoint.

JJ's second quote proves my point:

Freud=unscientific kike guru pretending to be a scientist.

Jung=unscientific kike-loving guru sans the pretense.

If you actually read Jung, you'd know it wasn't a pretense. Psychology, by it's nature isn't "hard science".

Years ago I did suffer through the kook's Memories, Dreams and Reflections. It describes a lifetime filled with seances, mythology, superstition, yoga, Eastern religion, and yes, banging numerous kikesses. That is neither hard nor soft science. Which is why today's "scientific" psychologists, like Philippe Rushton and Kevin MacDonald, are not Jungians.

AE, that's a pretty back-handed complement. Do you think most WNs are idiots?

Umm, is this a trick question?

After years of lurking followed by a few years of occasional involvement, I have to say I am tempted to say "yes." However I will acknowledge my own limitations and say that I have no way of extracting a representative sample. The smart ones could just be hiding out.

I'm not saying that about you Spengler. There are plenty of smart ones here and I am developing a slow appreciation for ones I initially thought were just foulmouths like OWG who has dropped a few witty insights.

If I had to point out four regular posters who seem sharp, I'd have to say Gott, Fred Haerne, Final Solution, yourself. Clearly there are others as well.

Now weigh up the proven idiots and ignoramuses posting here and elsewhere. Add to that the proven "freaks and defectives" WLP refered to. Add to that the criminals and informants. Now add to that the mindless joiners. What do you think? What is your conclusion?

Has anybody here studied Jung? Especially his discussion of religion myth and the collective unconscious?

A good intro to the topic is a book about Jung called "ARYAN CHRIST." It's availabe from major bookstores. I think many of you anti-Christians would find it very very interesting,

I read a line by Jung that I cant forget. I paraphrase: We have considered Christianity myth for some time now. But isnt it time to start taking Christianity seriously as myth?

Yes Antiochus it is an excellent introduction to the works of Jung.
Howevere I am sure that you will be aware from having read the book that Jung was anything but a Christian in terms of his life style and Weltanchauun. Hw was indeed a convinced pagan who was drawn to the Aryan Iranian myths and rituals of Mithras, who was one of the many Aryan prototypes of the alleged Jewish Christ.
Christ was merely a literary construct of a number of various sun gods and heroes found in much earlier Aryan mythologies.

Yes Antiochus it is an excellent introduction to the works of Jung.
Howevere I am sure that you will be aware from having read the book that Jung was anything but a Christian in terms of his life style and Weltanchauun. Hw was indeed a convinced pagan who was drawn to the Aryan Iranian myths and rituals of Mithras, who was one of the many Aryan prototypes of the alleged Jewish Christ.
Christ was merely a literary construct of a number of various sun gods and heroes found in much earlier Aryan mythologies.

I think many of the rabid anti-Chistians here would do well to consider Christ solely in terms of being a mythic-literary construct. I suggest the Christianity of our fathers-- or maybe great-grandfathers would be closer-- has more potential than being dismissed solely as a Jew cult designed for Aryan control. Is that why Abe Foxman is trying so hard to put Mel Gibson back in the box? See some dissonance here? The Jews clap-clap-clap at modern effiminate tv based mega-church rocknroll judeochristian dispensationalist morons a la fallwell etc. Jews subsidize and promote them and one inhabits the WHite house. But take a real man unafraid to tangle with Jews, hailing from a religion with somewhat preserved rituals and other exoteric forms, and the Jews get VERY dicey.

Oh, did we ever consider that about 1/3 of Palestinians are not Muslim but Greek Orthodox or Catholic? It aint slowing them down any, is it?

I paraphrase Jung again by saying, Christianity is worth considering AS myth. That includes a good study of the Mitraist/Zoroastrian origins of Christianity such as detailed in Revilo Oliver's Origins of Christianity, and a general survey of solar religion such as Julius Evola's Revolt against the Modern World.

I think All-father Yahweh, the mighty God who vanquished the other tribes in favor of his own little group of tribal warriors, was adopted quite easily by the Vikings. I was in a little old stavekirch in Hopperstad, in Norway, looking at faces of the Allfather carved alongside dragons and solar symbols like the "celtic cross" when it occured to me how easily most pagans probably adopted the new religion.

When we can deliver the money and power like the Christians could, which is how most of the conversions happened, with the sword of the Emperor behind it all, whatever exoteric religion we draw out of our collective unconscious will catch on like similar wildfire.

I'm for working on all parts of the problem at once. But I think there will continue to be certain elements: a Father, a fertility god son, a tragic death of the beloved son, a resurrection, a new age. hook that to an ingroup-outgroup morality, with love and forgiveness and harmony for the in-group, and death and fire for the outgroup, and you've got your new religion. Except lo and behold: it looks like the old one.

If I had to point out four regular posters who seem sharp, I'd have to say Gott, Fred Haerne, Final Solution, yourself. Clearly there are others as well.

Thanks! Add to that yourself, and Draco.

Curiously, my name is never spelled Fredrik Haerne on these pages...it's always Fred, Fred Haerne, Frederick or some other spelling....

Anyway, I wanted to say: yes, the majority of White nationalists are good and decent people. Let us remind ourselves that the majority of Whites are, in fact, nationalists; they would vote for their own freedom and against darkling invasion if they could, and that goes for all White countries.

However, only a small percent of them are active nationalists, of course, and among these many tend to be rough guys, who have nothing to lose from working in the open. I think that if you want to attract the more decent nationalists you will sadly need to form a party that is only anti-immigrant, and hold back the anti-Jewish message; that has been the case all over Europe. I think that's what has been argued at the Where do we go from here? section at VNN Forum as well.

As for the Vikings adopting Christianity: they often needed to convert in order to be allowed to trade with Christian towns down south. Their own religion made no such demands. As usual, the most aggressive side wins.

Furthermore, the Christians had a professional class of religious leaders, who had a great interest in expanding the religion, and so used their clout to make princes do just that, threatening fire and brimstone and promising rewards, etc. By contrast, Asatro religious leaders were almost always simply the local chieftain or lord, or some other man held in high esteem. Their income was not dependent on the religion, and so they were content to simply tend to the local religious duties in peace, like all decent men.

The Vikings would usually let the Christians go about their business in peace, perhaps shaking their head at their folly sometimes, but leaving them be. Whoever wished to join in on the sticklicking was allowed to do so, they figured. And so the Christians grew stronger, until they were strong enough to deny the Asatroende the religious freedom they themselves had been granted. Much like Jews grow stronger in the name of diversity, until they are able to ban dissent. Or like socialists, who use the freedom of speech until they are in control and able to impose state control on the media. There is a lesson for all Whites here: we are always too nice!