Click here to support the Daily Grail for as little as $US1 per month on Patreon
Nazi rally with occult symbols

Occult Nazis – The Jung Case

Gary Lachman’s book Politics and the Occult: The Left, The Right, and the Radically Unseen is available from Amazon US and Amazon UK.


Dark Sides: The Jung Case

Although Hitler apparently had little interest in the occult – as Mark Sedgwick writes, “Hitler had no sympathy for occultism of any variety,” – he had close contact with people who did, and the Nazi movement, while not the product of “black brotherhoods” or diabolical “unknown superiors,” was certainly amenable to some occult influences. Himmler’s SS infamously incorporated runic, pagan, and Grail elements and was deeply influenced by the ideas of the occultist Karl Maria Wiligut. One SS officer, Otto Rahn, wrote a bestselling book, Crusade against the Grail, associating the Cathars with the Grail legend. Hermann Wirth, author of the monumental The Rise of Mankind, used meditation to view the past and argued, like Bal Gangadhar Tilak, that the Aryan race began in the frozen north. In 1935 Wirth was a co-founder of the notorious Ahnenerbe, the Nazi “research unit” devoted to uncovering Germany’s ancestral Aryan heritage, whose efforts included sending the SS explorer Ernst Schäfer to the Himalayas to measure Tibetan skulls. And while Hitler himself may have rejected occultism, he was certainly aware of “the power of myth,” a phrase familiar to viewers of the journalist Bill Moyers’ fantastically successful series of interviews with the mythologist Joseph Campbell.

The electrifying power of the swastika; Albert Speer’s dazzling lighting effects at the Nuremberg rallies; Hitler’s “demonic” oratory and his own deification as the Führer; the romantic vision of a bucolic Germany rooted in “blood and soil,” as opposed to an urban, mechanical modernity – all were part of the myth of National Socialism that Hitler and his followers sold to an interested public. A myth was instrumental in Hitler’s success, the dark lie voiced in The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Whether the Protocols were “true” or not probably never occurred to Hitler; what was important was that they agreed with his own views and that, like himself, many people believed they were true. (The people who believed in the Protocols weren’t necessarily unintelligent; one of their most fervent supporters was Henry Ford, father of the assembly line and mass production. Like many influential people, faced with evidence that the Protocols were forged, Ford refused to believe it.) Like the French syndicalist George Sorrel and the political philosopher Leo Strauss, Hitler knew that in politics, myth is often more important than the “truth,” a difficult commodity to pin down at any time. Reason and rationality are boring and demand effort. Myth bypasses the inhibitions of the critical mind, and reaches down to the vital forces below. This is what makes it exciting and enlivening. It is also what makes it dangerous. In saying this I am not arguing “against” myth, merely pointing out that it entails something more than just “following your bliss.”

Yet many at the time were willing to risk the danger and embrace myth over reason. One was the Swiss psychologist C. G. Jung, perhaps more than anyone else, the single most important figure in the reawakening of spiritual thought in modern times. Although for much of his career Jung obscured his interest in the occult, in his later years his writings on Gnosticism, alchemy, the paranormal, spiritualism, and even flying saucers brought these otherwise marginal areas into the field of respectable research. Predictably, Jung’s occult inclinations led to criticisms of irrationalism. Like Ludwig Klages, Jung has been seen by many on the left as a dangerous exponent of völkisch ideas. The neo-Marxist philosopher Ernst Bloch, himself no stranger to Rosicrucianesque utopias, once described Jung as a “fascistically frothing psychoanalyst.” Other neo-Marxist philosophers, like Theodor Adorno, likewise branded Jung a fascist. The tag was perhaps first made seriously by the German-Jewish cultural philosopher Walter Benjamin, who, unlike Adorno, had some interest in occult ideas, specifically the cabala and graphology, a discipline he shared, ironically, with the “fascist” Klages. (Benjamin was also a close friend of the cabalist scholar Gershom Scholem, who, as mentioned, was an associate of Jung at the Eranos lectures.) Adorno, Bloch, and others saw Jung’s psychology as a simple celebration of the unconscious, a rejection of the rational, critical mind in the same vein as the work of the more straightforward irrationalist Klages, whose ideas about “soul” in opposition to “spirit,” they argue, helped prime the German psyche for Hitler. The fact that Jung, like many others, at first believed that the creative potential of Germany might find fruitful expression through Hitler couldn’t have helped. According to Jung’s psychology, the “shadow” side of the psyche, though associated with “evil,” can often be the source of “good,” of new life and transformation, and Jung reportedly spoke of the Nazis as “a chaotic precondition for the birth of a new world,” a nod to Nietzsche’s remark that “One must have chaos within oneself to give birth to a dancing star.” This, in a way, exemplifies the dangers of “holy sinning,” and reminds us that even great men can be blinded by their ideas.

More recently, in his controversial work The Jung Cult, Richard Noll makes similar charges against Jung, arguing that in his early career the heir apparent to the throne of Freud immersed himself in the Aryan occult milieu of Munich and Ascona, as a devotee of völkisch beliefs who envisioned himself a kind of national savior. Other works suggest that in his later career Jung was, while not a full-fledged party member, at least a kind of Nazi “fellow traveler,” hedging his bets before finally coming down on the winning side. Jung’s supporters reject this idea as well as the belief that, in the words of the novelist Thomas Mann, Jung was “always a half-Nazi.” Jung himself flatly denied that he was ever a Nazi sympathizer or anti-Semitic.

The debate continues. What comes across in accounts of Jung’s involvement with the Nazis is that, like anyone else, the great man was capable of damaging mistakes and misjudgments, a charge made against Jung by one of his closest collaborators, the Jewish psychoanalyst Jolande Jacobi. Jung’s misjudgments included commenting on the differences between the German and Jewish psyches at a time when such remarks, no matter how “objective” or “scientific,” would be used for odious purposes by the Nazi racial hacks. Pronouncements on the “old” Jewish psyche and the “youthful” German one were bound to be misread in the dark days of the 1930s, notwithstanding that Jung made these comments in the context of others about the “western” and “eastern” psyches, and wasn’t singling the Jews out for criticism. Likewise, Jung’s remark that the Jews seem “never to have created a cultural form of their own,” but require a “host nation,” would have been read in 1934 (when it was made) in one way only, that the Jew was a parasite, feeding off its Aryan host, no matter that Jewish philosophers like Otto Weininger and Ludwig Wittgenstein made similar remarks (and clearly, that they said it doesn’t make it true).

Jung can also be criticized for accepting the presidency of the General Society for Psychotherapy and editorship of its journal, the Zentralblatt für Psychotherapie – both based in Germany – at a time when they were moving inexorably toward being gleichgeschaltet, “conformed,” to Nazi ideologies. Jung argued that he accepted the presidency in order to prevent the society from becoming totally Nazified, and that he even took steps to help its Jewish members, redrafting its statutes to make it formally international, and creating a new category of individual membership, thus allowing Jews excluded from German membership to belong as individuals. During Jung’s editorship of the Zentralblatt, Dr. M. H. Göring – a cousin of the Nazi Reichmarshal Hermann Göring – who had been made president of the German Section of the Society, inserted a pro-Nazi statement of principles in an issue in 1933, recommending Mein Kampf as a basic text for all psychotherapists and urging all members to declare their loyalty to National Socialism. Jung, who lived in Zurich, and had little “hands on” control of the journal, was outraged at the statement and claimed it was included without his knowledge.

Jung eventually gave up his presidency and editorship, but that he initially stayed on has been taken as evidence that he didn’t want to become an enemy of the Third Reich too early in the game. In his defense it can be said that Jung didn’t want to hand over an important intellectual journal to complete Nazi rule, and along with helping Jewish colleagues and other Jews – and having important Jewish followers, like Erich Neumann and Gerhard Adler – in 1936 Jung did finally condemn Hitler as a “raving berserker,” a man “possessed” who had set Germany on its “course toward perdition.” After this, Jung naturally became a target; his books were suppressed and destroyed, and his name put on the Nazi blacklist. As Deirdre Bair makes clear in her recent biography of Jung, U.S. military intelligence checked reports of Jung’s Nazi sympathies, found they were unsubstantiated, and conscripted Jung to help in their plans to defeat Hitler. Along with other efforts in the Allied cause, Jung worked with the Office of Strategic Services, making psychological assessments of Nazi leaders, under the code name “Agent 488.” Jung’s influence reached to the upper echelons of the Allied hierarchy when, towards the close of the war, General Dwight D. Eisenhower turned to Jung’s work for insight on how best to convince the German civilians that defeat was inevitable. Jung was even briefly involved in a German plot to overthrow Hitler, and his essay “Wotan,” in which he argues that the rise of National Socialism was evidence that Germany, which he called a “land of spiritual catastrophes,” had been overwhelmed by the archetype of the ancient Teutonic god, became required reading throughout the British Foreign Office.

But in a sense, Jung’s encounter with Nazism is a red herring. Whether he was inclined toward Nazism or not (and I don’t think he was), like Schwaller de Lubicz, Jung was in many ways a “man of the right.” Like René Guénon, he had little love for the modern
world. He built his famous tower, Bollingen, on the shores of Lake Zurich so he could escape from modern banality and immerse himself in older, mythic forms of consciousness. He was notoriously disparaging of modern culture and saw works like James Joyce’s Ulysses and Picasso’s paintings as indications of a psychic deterioration; he was also, like Schwaller, tin-eared and had little time for music. There was also an authoritarian streak in Jung which made him partial to dictators like Spain’s Francisco Franco, a political sentiment that put him at odds with his fellow Eranos lecturer Jean Gebser, who was on the side of the Republicans and missed being executed by the fascists by a hairsbreadth. With all due respect for his undeniable contribution to the spiritual consciousness of modern times, this marks Jung as one of the “good guys” who said “bad things.”

Like Joseph de Maistre and Saint-Yves d’Alveydre, Jung believed that anarchy must be avoided at all costs. Writing in 1936, Jung argued that “the loss of any firm authority is gradually leading to an intellectual, political, and social anarchy, which is repugnant to the soul of European man, accustomed as he is to patriarchal order.” He felt that the loss of the authority of the Church was responsible for the rise of totalitarianism and the deification of the state, which he defined as “the agglomeration of the nonentities composing it.” Like Ouspensky, Jung believed that the state was “intellectually and ethically far below the level of most of the individuals in it,” yet he felt that modern man was increasingly moving toward some absorption in the mass. One agent of this was the welfare state, which Jung saw as a “doubtful blessing” that “robs people of their individual responsibility and turns them into infants and sheep” and produces a collectivist society in which “the capable will simply be exploited by the irresponsible,” an argument often made by conservative politicians and right-wing thinkers like the philosopher and novelist Ayn Rand. Yet the welfare state was only one manifestation of the ills of modernity. More disturbing was “the accumulation of urban, industrialized masses – of people torn from the soil, engaged in one-sided employment, and lacking every healthy instinct, even that of self-preservation,” an observation that could easily have been made by the Traditionalist and fascist sympathizer Julius Evola.

Jung argued that these conditions made something like Nazism possible, yet these are the very evils the Nazis opposed when they championed being “rooted in the soil” against what they saw as a rootless, urban, Jewish cosmopolitanism. This doesn’t undermine Jung’s criticism of the modern condition, which in many ways rings true, but it is another example of the complexities of occult politics. It also shows that a rejection of the modern world needn’t result in a dangerous “flight from reason,” or an embrace of some putative “tradition,” or a plunge into fascism. It can also prompt a rational recognition that unless these troubling realities are addressed, one of these three undesirable possibilities will settle in to fill the gap.

Against these trends, Jung offered his concept of individuation, the psychological process through which, in Nietzsche’s phrase, “one becomes what one is,” and which Jung saw as Western man’s only hope to avoid being absorbed in some homogenous social mass, the “mass man” of modern times. As Noll argues in his challenging work, it’s easy to see this as Jung’s own call for an elite; by Jung’s admission, individuation, while theoretically possible for everyone, is really embraced only by the few, although there is nothing to stop others from doing so, except inclination. The echoes of Guénon and Schwaller are disturbing, yet Jung’s individuation, like the psychologist Abraham Maslow’s self-actualizing, doesn’t call for some primordial tradition or temple knowledge – or even riding boots – but for us to take on the responsibility of realizing our own personality and potential, which Jung called “an act of the greatest courage in the face of life.” As such, it suggests a more liberal, tolerant, and creative path than the one offered by authoritarian schools of thought.

Yet those other schools of thought remained, and their reaction to the modern conditions that troubled Jung were very different.

  1. “Hitler apparently had little interest in the occult”???
    I was surprised to read “Hitler apparently had little interest in the occult”. Does anybody still believe this sanitized and concealed version of history? Even if an individual hasn’t watched the “Indiana Jones” movie series, where some of the occult secrets of Hitler, and other world power elite were disclosed, the truth of the occult interests and satanic foundation of the Nazi movement has been leaking out for 30 years or more. An excellent discussion of the truth of the Nazi party’s occult activities, as well as a lot of fascinating occult material, can be found in Trevor Ravenscroft’s “The Spear of Destiny”. Don’t be the last one on your block to get the inside-word on what’s been going on in modern society!

    1. Nazis and Hitler
      I haven’t gone very deeply into all this. However the Nazi movement was a lot like a manufactured religion. Based on old Germanic myths, Roman myths, and Darwinism.

      My personal guess is that Hitler found all this useful, but that he mainly believed in Hitler. Aside from his hate for Jews of course.

      Similar to Lenin, who used an ideology for his personal advantage. Or Mao, who did the same thing.

      I am not sure about Pol Pot – he may actually have believed in the stone age communism fiction.

      In this context, what is worse? That someone believes in these kinds of destructive and violent cults, or that someone coldly uses them to seduce the population?

      It is not how fast you go
      it is when you get there.

      1. Analyzing Genocide
        Hi earthling –

        If you want to understand how genocide happens, I think you have to examine the specifics of each case.

        That said, I don’t think you can lump Lenin together with Mao, Pol Pot, and Hitler.

        If you read Edward Bellamy’s The Sleeper Wakes, it will show you the roots of Lenin’s social thinking.

    2. Actually, the “Occult” laid at the heart of Nazism
      First off, thanks to Greg for raising this topic.

      Second, 1solo, you are absolutely correct. It is my thinking that if the occult roots of Nazism had been more thoroughly exposed, perhaps the German people themselves would have stopped Hitler.
      A very interesting question is why this failed to happen.

      There is little doubt the W.K.C. Guthrie’s observation that religions which hold a doctrine of re-incarnation rise in times of economic downturn and general social uncertainty is true.
      (See Guthrie’s “Orpheus and Greek Religion” for a great discussion.)

      The creation of the modern theosophist cults is really not well known. And so both con-men and the seriously confused are able to continue to turn people into victims.

      If you watch Hitler’s speeches, you will see that when he spoke about Germany he was really speaking about himself, which explains in part his “hypnotic” speech making abilities. There is no doubt that what underlayed that was German Theosophism, particularly its emphasis on an “Aryan” race. This belief explains much of Hitler’s actions; and when the war began to turn agsinst him and created larger casualties, this belief was a source of comfort for him.

      Most insanities have a logic of their own.

  2. reminds me of obama
    obama promotes the same mythological approach concerning his presidency and also has an agenda to secure a large portion of future voters by voting $ into their hands they didn’t work for.

    Like the article said, “One agent of this was the welfare state, which Jung saw as a “doubtful blessing” that “robs people of their individual responsibility and turns them into infants and sheep” and produces a collectivist society in which “the capable will simply be exploited by the irresponsible,”

    I turn on the news and see a reporter asking an obese uneducated black single mother of 3 what she thinks the presidency of Obama will mean for her children. She says, “Well, uh ah alwayz wanted to own a house an a car, n maybe goto schooool somedays.”

    I work my fucking ass off while some empty suit shill uses the colour of his skin and promises of money to secure the laziest, dumbest portion of humanity. Fuck!!

    1. Fuc…what?
      [quote=AlphaMale]I work my fucking ass off while some empty suit shill uses the colour of his skin and promises of money to secure the laziest, dumbest portion of humanity. Fuck!![/quote]

      Yeah, black people wouldn’t know what that feels like…

      Kind regards,
      You monkeys only think you’re running things

      1. Dear Alpha Male, you’ve been in charge for 200+ years.
        Now we all need to work together. By only looking out for ourselves, many will suffer. As has the US and the world these last 30+ years. I hope for a better future. Where color is not the first thing we see in another.

    2. America and Obama
      Wow, you sure have a lot of anger in you. Sure, across the world there are people who either by circumstance or choice will live off others or the welfare state. But viewed from outside of America, Obama is seen as a needed change at the top of the world’s greatest power. Maybe some Americans will see Obama as a free meal ticket, others as breath of fresh air, but overall, he will be good for both America and the world.

      I would also point out that even if Obama is nothing more than an ’empty suit’ I just wish he was the top man in my country as he is way ahead of what we presently have.


    3. Welfare, Republican-style
      This comment reminds me of a popular conservative website I read this last week (must be my masochistic streak) featuring the headline, re Obama’s administration, saying “Here Comes Socialism.”

      AlphaMale–have you been paying attention these last 8 years? I know I have–and I’ve watched as my tax dollars support rampant socialism in the form of massive subsidies for energy companies, bail-outs for banks, and tax breaks for the rich.

      The “welfare state” you bemoan is already here–except the minorities you clearly dislike aren’t the ones who have benefitted.

      Ray G.

    4. AlphaMale
      If you really care so much about yourself and how you’re getting screwed over, one of the biggest screwings you’re getting is believing that your biggest problem is a liberal agenda. Stop looking through the eyes of the people that tell you how to think and actually consider what is going on.

      Jung said, “the capable will simply be exploited by the irresponsible,”

      Hey, didn’t that just happen for the last eight years? Just hope the people who were “right” haven’t screwed us so badly that we go further than the greatest depression that ever occured in our history, and ignored a planet on the verge of tipping into overheating due to greed and irresponsibility.

      Maybe it’s time to be mad at someone else? Or maybe let’s just hope we get to keep our jobs and that the stimulus package that gets passed improves the economy enough that millions of people don’t lose their jobs around the world.

      But if you do lose your job due to the economic downturn and have to go on welfare, guess who would turn on you in an instant? You’d be burdening the economy for those who can work! Who cares why you’re out of work.

    5. Of subject but…
      I think the old adage “Give a man a fish he eats for a day, teach him how to fish he eats all his life” is in play.

      People get frustrated when people they see as “layabouts” get handed to them what they have to work hard for.

      [quote]…obese uneducated black single mother of 3…[/quote]

      How shall we as a society deal with her? Give her a house, a car and feed her and her children? Charity out of guilt because she is black and descended from slaves? So give her a fish and just keep them coming…

      Does this address the reasons she is what she is and others like her? Teach her how to fish…

      I laugh when every time I see something about “A laptop for every child”. That’s just what some starving kid in Africa needs, a laptop…

      Why not get rid of the the oppressive element, help the people to farm and take care of themselves and the kids can go to school? Oh yeah, that’s too hard…just give them the damn laptop and be done with it and feel good that you “helped out”. 🙂


    1. Er…so what are you trying to say?
      Forgery – Something counterfeit, forged, or fraudulent.

      Um, it wasn’t a real document. It was made up from nothing to further a political agenda.

      “It is a classic in paranoid, racist literature. Taken by the gullible as the confidential minutes of a Jewish conclave convened in the last years of the nineteenth century, it has been heralded by antisemites as proof that Jews are plotting to take over the world.”

      Would you like me to cite more specifics about the hoax or to provide you with some specific documentation or internet sites where you could read more about the hoax?

      If you would also like to provide some Holocaust fakery links or whatever, that is certainly what I would expect to come next.

      I find it really funny how people believe that for some reason Jews want to take over the world. If they do, they certainly have stunk at it. Nobody really worries about groups who SAY they want to take over the world. No, they seem to be exempt from these conspiracies. I suppose it’s those hidden ones that don’t seem to actually exist that are really dangerous. Sigh.

  3. Cmon
    @ greg
    And the Romans invaded my germanic ancestors – I demand reparations!

    I’m spitting the truth and when I describe a black obese illiterate leech I get labeled a nut? I don’t care what colour anyones skin is, I was relaying an objective observation. Also, surprise, I’m not a republikan either. I don’t trust any authority and neither should you. I swear people, you are the same dumbasses this article described, getting swept up in the hype and drinking the kool aid.

    I’m quite a jolly fellow too actually but can understand how people formulate this ghostly angry Internet persona behind the keyboard, although I still don’t give a shit.

    And the OLTPC thing? Right-O. When I see bums I say, ” you need money?come help me haul shit to the dump and I’ll pay you $10/hr.” “no thanks sir, looking for free handouts”

    THAT’S human nature and fuckbama caters to the same weak and lazy to win their vote. Don’t you forget it.
    And I would never go on welfare. For one I have dignity, second I am a fucking genius and operate a very lucrative business. I don’t care about me, I care about feeding my kids and supporting my family.

    1. Alpha Male Try to be a bit more selective with your language
      Alpha Male

      In essence I agree with your arguments (without the vulgar language). The new president is probably a bit of a lightweight, however, as a non-US citizen, and accepting the rhetoric that many people who voted in that election believe democracy still exists, I have to accept the decision made by them (or whoever controls the election process).

      Despite this your vulgar language detracts from the arguments you make and puts people off listening or believing you!

      The fact that you write such words on a global stage belittles your own views and integirty. Would you like your children to see your vulgar words?

      As for arrogance, you have it in abundance – just read your last post. “I am a f**** genius”. I don’t know if you are or not, but I do know it is difficult for a person to make an honest assessment of themselves. Only if other people say you are a genius, not once but many times may you consider it a possibility. But it is also possible you are listening to someone who is being either sycophantic or considers anyone who does something successfully that they can’t to be a genius. No doubt, Obama considers himself to be genius too!

      I don’t know how things will pan out in the next few years. For nearly a decade I have been of the opinion that there is very little money in the world and the people who are chosen to rule us because we consider them to be the wisest are actually the most incompetent. They are certainly out of touch with reality, and may even be trying to alter things so that there is a one world society. All I know is that at the moment all of us are suffering one way or another.

      Please use a bit of self-control and self-discipline when writing as not everyone accepts a person who uses such vulgar language has a mature worthwhile message worth listening to.

      Carol A Noble

  4. @ carol
    If I cared about

    @ carol

    If I cared about being listened to I would assume such a mode. I am spouting off w/ little concern for who listens. People continually amaze me with their stupidity. If I’m a man with a superior iq, do you really think I haven’t considered the points you presented? Besides, true genius lies in recognizing ones own infinite ignorence.

    1. It isn’t so simple
      You are making all sorts of assumptions in your opinions. Based on your assumptions, sure you’re right. I doubt anything anyone says will dent your opinions.

      Sure there are very valid points about handouts being wrong and dangerous for our financial security and would cause social grief for everyone. But I think it’s hilarious that right wingers are trying to stamp the new president as an ultra liberal (regardless of the facts). They are like magicians who try to get you to look at one hand while they play dirty pool with the other. These baseless claims are being presented for the same reason they always have been; they are trying to take attention away from their indiscretions.

      The government screwed up bad and let special interest groups and people at high levels in corporations write their own tickets on what they could do, hoping that it would stimulate the market to bigger and better things. They let people, mostly friends and people who contributed money, run rampant against all good sense. They halted most social programs and took funds away from many essential programs including schooling and infrastructure saying that small government was important. They funded a huge war with BILLIONS of dollars going to corporations that were tightly connected to the government and that had executives that were friends of people in the government. Guess who loses out in this situation? YOU do.

      Almost every one of these contracted companies made huge amounts of money. But not the regular Joes like you and me. The top 1% of the people made millions of dollars from these contracts. The people who worked like crazy and many who lost their lives got regular pay as if nothing special was happening. So the top 1% of people continued to make millions of dollars while the rest of the people got less and less social programs in the name of a stronger economy. The top 1% of people in corporations got millions of dollars as well in order to keep our economy strong. And then look what happened?

      The lack of government review allowed greedy people to take advantage of the situation all over the place. The government knew what was happening but they didn’t figure the entire mess would fall apart like it did. What did they do? They made sure that all of their friends got out in time and then let the entire thing fall onto yours and my backs. Now they are trying to point the fingers at others as to whose fault it is. Sure they say, “Oh lets work together to fix this” because they don’t really want you to look back at what really happened.

      So sure go ahead and point your finger at some social issue that pisses you off but how the hell do you ignore the unbelievable atrocity that was just committed on you by this social elite that is trying to get you to ignore their indiscretion by scaring you with claims of some fat lady and her kids? How is that being smart of you? Did you really think this through? I’m really happy for your great IQ and your great company. When you stop making money and your relatives start hurting for money because of the economy, think of the social elite that took their money and ran. Think of how they point at that fat lady and her kids and cry about how she is taking your money. They are great magicians!

  5. @ RonB
    Of course you are correct in your claims. I don’t disagree with anything you had to say. We’re getting fucked on both ends. A little off topic but I have at times wondered
    if 9/11 was an inside job committed by the corporations
    that produce the weaponry the miltary uses. After all,
    it just meant more money in their hands a la the
    permanent war economy

    1. “Today, America would be
      “Today, America would be outraged if UN troops entered Los Angeles to restore order. Tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told that there was an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all people of the world will plead to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being granted to them by the world government.”

      Henry Kissinger (Bilderburg Conference 1991 Evians, France)

  6. “By the time you become the
    “By the time you become the leader of a country, someone else makes all the decisions. You may find you can get away with Virtual Presidents, Virtual Prime Ministers, and Virtual Everything.”
    Bill Clinton

  7. Jung/Nazis
    I’ve read quite a bit of Jung, and I never got the feeling that he had much sympathy for the Nazis. Time and again during that period he spoke of a ‘psychic plague’ ‘infecting’ Europe. He also remarked that the German psyche had been invaded by it’s Teutonic ancestors. Seems pretty clear to me.

    As for the Shadow, in Jung it’s a ‘personal’ content of all things rejected by the ego, both ‘good and bad’. In the process of individuation, the Shadow has to be ‘integrated’ in the sense that there’s ‘good stuff’ in there that was repressed for the wrong reasons (e.g. social engineering, misunderstanding, immaturity). The ‘good stuff’ is gold that needs to be recovered … along the lines of the ‘lotus in the mud’ imagery of the East. The alchemists said of the goal: ‘It is found in cesspools’.

    Jung was willing to explore almost any psychological experience, whether or not it was rationable or ‘approved’ by society, in order to understand the human psyche, to the benefit of his clients. His understanding penetrates far beyond temporal diseases like fascism … or capitalism. It’s not so easy to grasp because it’s diffuse, but the rewards can be well worth the effort. He was quite far ahead of the game.

  8. Genuine Historical Facts About Nazi Occultism Do Exist
    The true amateur of sensational and strange stories can still be fully satisfied with Himmler’s Witch Project, or the Hollow Earth Theory. The book “Nazi secrets” aims at separating genuine historical facts in the field of Nazi occultism from Post War fabrications. The amateur of mysteries and dark secrets will not be disappointed though since in this quest reality is often stranger than fiction.

    1. “Loyalty Day”
      Thursday, May 2, 2013
      Obama Makes May 1st “Loyalty Day” for Citizens to Reaffirm Allegiance to US

      In a Presidential Proclamation signed April 30th, President Obama declared May 1st to be “Loyalty Day” in America from this day forward so citizens can reaffirm their allegiance to the United States.

      According to the White House:

      In order to recognize the American spirit of loyalty and the sacrifices that so many have made for our Nation, the Congress, by Public Law 85-529 as amended, has designated May 1 of each year as “Loyalty Day.” On this day, let us reaffirm our allegiance to the United States of America, our Constitution, and our founding values.

      NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim May 1, 2013, as Loyalty Day. This Loyalty Day, I call upon all the people of the United States to join in support of this national observance, whether by displaying the flag of the United States or pledging allegiance to the Republic for which it stands.

      Loyalty Day was first observed as a holiday in 1921 during the first Red Scare “marked by a widespread fear of Bolshevism and anarchism” (Wiki). However, it has only been observed by small localized communities.

      Obama’s proclamation will make Loyalty Day a national holiday to rally Americans behind more widespread fear, or freedom according to Obama’s statement.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Mobile menu - fractal