Re: impressive ad about our military

January 11, 2012

According to novelist Alberto Moravia. who interviewed Jung in 1948, Jung at

that time attributed the savagery of WWI and WWII to " the absence of a healthy

relationship with the devil. " I take this to mean something along the lines of

at least knowing of, if not resolving, the battle inside themselves. Based on

other things Jung has said, however, I would think that, for many people, " the

devil " needs to be literal. Hence in another place Jung refers to the doctrine

of original sin as " most salutary " - it teaches people about the devil within.

In yet another place, Jung said that, before attempting analysis, he would

first try to send people back to church, if they could go. If people do not know

- which means, if they are not taught and then often reminded - of the evil or

savagery within themselves, then that evil will be acted out unconsciously,

sometimes by means of savage war. " It is the psyche of man that makes wars. Not

his consciousness. His consciousness is afraid, but his unconscious, which

contains the inherited savagery as well as the spiritual striving of the race,

says to him, Now it is time to make war. Now is the time to kill and destroy.'

And he does it " (CGJ, 1934). Jung described Hitler in particular as a sort of

unconscious carrier of the shadow of the German psyche: " Hitler has sacrificed

his individuality, or else does not possess one in any real sense, to this

almost complete subordination to collective unconscious forces and he is able to

draw upon this hidden store. He himself has spoken of being able to hear a

voice. To him it is as if he does, and the voice which he hears is that of the

collective unconsciousness, especially of his own race. " (emphasis added).

regards,

Dan

>

> Steve et al

>

> Wow....this was certainly not my intention..................my point and my

only point with the ad was not to support or anything else. My point was

this. People in America are often totally naive (and 9/11 changed this a bit)

as to what it means to have war on your soil or marshal law. Coming from a

family which did experience that I can tell you it is not pretty and has

consequences for generations. I also saw this living in Japan for ten

years--generations of consequences. Oh yes, they stupidly (and maybe not so

stupid in the long run....did we know they were going to do it....I think so)

bombed Pearl Harbor, but what did we do in return. So the ad for me showed what

it would be like to have war on our soil and so the breathless pace of the ad,

because that is what you feel in those types of situations--like you can not

breathe. Do you think really and truly, if we keep doing what we are doing that

sooner or later, it won't

> happen? Furthermore, we, while this look in another direction diversion goes

on, have been losing our constitutional rights day after day. We complain about

other countries where the right to protest is destroyed, and here? What is

happening? What would the founding father's say? Who now controls this

country? Do we still have a democracy? What are we leaning towards with this

capitalistic society where business, banking and politics has lost it sense of

integrity to the hilt if you ask me and get away with it. What will happen if

people get fed up and revolt? Will we be any better than what we have been

fighting. Right now we are so far from agreement with each other that the whole

political process is generally thwarted and we just want to blame the other

camp, creating a war dynamic in the minds of the majority of Americans. What

happens when you don't want to come to terms with something in yourself? You

either fragment or

> your project it out? And so, the multitude of Christian groups, etc.

>

> So here we have another situation where those wanting to protect themselves

from being bullied or others from being bullied become bullies themselves. A

good percentage of the American population feels, right now, like bugs on the

windshield and that my dears is very very dangerous. I really do not know what

Jung said about war directly or about the second coming, but I do believe that

it is internal, can be experienced through many processes and is the only way,

when there are enough blossoms of it, that society will come out of this

barbaric state we have been in for centuries. I certainly am not one of those

blossoms yet. I struggle day after day with this that is in a state of

knowingness in the center of my being...every day. I am not detached enough

looking at what is happening and it is very frustrating for me, especially

seeing how fearful, asleep and in denial people are. The only thing stopping

people from being friends with everyone,

> in my book, is that we are in an uncivilized hell where we are invested in

looking for how to blame and how to disagree instead of looking for agreement.

That's it for me. Saying this, no I do not believe the best protection for war

is to prepare for war. I believe, and I think Jung would agree if I take the

liberty, is that the best protection against war is for as many people as

possible to find the battle inside themselves and solve it. Personally, I think

I should shut my mouth, because a good job of this I don't think I have done, as

of yet.

>

> One last thing, I have friends who are so vested in the law of silence that

they never disagree or confront anything in the world around them. They think

this is not being disagreeable. I am not talking about this type of denial

where the disagreement is never resolved, but we are taught to believe in that

type of agreement. On the internet about a year ago was a .jpg of a young woman

in a group overseas. She was very unsophisticated looking in very humble

clothes and she was holding a sign that said, " Silence is a war crime. " I say

this clearly, " I am not good at all of this. I am still trying to sort out

something, which is very difficult for me, but I am trying. "

>

January 11, 2012

>Without the aristocratic ideal there is no stability.

The problem is that we are today under an ideal of thieves

and hoods with their hands in our pockets.

Re: impressive ad about our military

"Communistic or Socialistic democracy is an upheaval of the unfit against attempts at order. Consider the stay-in strikes in France, the former socialistic upheavals in Germany and Italy. This state of disorder called democratic freedom or liberalism brings its own reaction - enforced order. In as much as the European nations are incapable of living in a chronic state of disorder, they will make attempts at enforced order, or fascism .. A decent oligarchy - call it aristocracy if you like - is the most ideal form of government.. Without the aristocratic ideal there is no stability. You in England owe it to the "gentleman" that you possess the world."CG Jung, from "The Psychology of Dictatorship," 1936.> > > > >> > > > > Steve....I understand your heat and your concerns, but I think he was saying that about the bugs on the windshield in regards to what he feels about how Ron 's politics are. Personally, I tend to think they are all bought out these days and have no control and I have deep concerns, but I also think that a balance is needed. We need to become as conscious as we can, but we also need focus on something higher and what we can create or the battle is lost. A lot of people are just asleep. As I have said previously, we need to be really awake to what are ideas of Satan are and things like Armageddon. If we just want to blame, we are part of the problem to and we are already giving in to defeat. Society these days is so ready to pull the skeleton out of the closet on everyone. Certainly, I could not run. Jefferson, Lincoln all had skeletons as JFK did, but it is the sum total balance of things and what someone's intentions are. If things> > > > > go a miss totally, it is the consciousness of society that created it. This is why I hate all the new age adages about changing yourself and changing the world. I believe one can change and it has no effect on others around us, especially sometimes those closest to us unfortunately, but it does have a ripple effect and one does not know where the ripples go and how they will create circles and we can swim to a greater circle. The Romans were, no matter what philosophy they brought forward, were military warriors. This ugly battle which, Christianity took hold of, has gone on for centuries. The real return of what Christ represents ( and I was raised Jewish, but have a more eclectic practice) will be if everyone decided to let go of all of this and go wait a minute. I do believe movies tell us a lot about where our culture is going. So there are two lines in movies which I always remember and I suggest you see the movies. In a river runs> > > > > through, the hero and heroine are walking down a path together in the countrry after having very difficult scenarios with those close to them and the hero says the the heroine " Why is it that those closest to us and need us the most listen to us the least." The other is Star Man and the alien in the movie talks about the many races all over the universe and he talks about humans being interesting, because, "You are at your best when things are at their worst." RR> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------> > > > > > > > "Our highest duty as human beings is to search out a means whereby beings may be freed from all kinds of unsatisfactory experience and suffering."> > > > > > > > H.H. Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th. Dalai Lama> > > > > > > > > > > >

January 11, 2012

>Oh yes, they stupidly (and maybe not so stupid in the long run....did we know they were going to do it....I think so) bombed Pearl Harbor, but what did we do in return.

_____________________________

Yes we knew that they were going to do it. The intelligence knew a week ahead.

They secretly let it happen so war can be justified. So too they knew that the

World Trade buildings would be attacked and also secretly let it happen, so that

justified war with Iraq who had nothing to do with it. It also justified Bush's

passages of his Nazi bills and the Homeland Security. They can pass any unpopular

law by simply creating disasters. I personally believe that those who piloted the

airplanes were patsies. Why did building 7 come down demolition style when it

was never hit?

I agree with your post very much!

Steve

Re: impressive ad about our military

Steve et al

Wow....this was certainly not my intention..................my point and my only point with the ad was not to support or anything else. My point was this. People in America are often totally naive (and 9/11 changed this a bit) as to what it means to have war on your soil or marshal law. Coming from a family which did experience that I can tell you it is not pretty and has consequences for generations. I also saw this living in Japan for ten years--generations of consequences. Oh yes, they stupidly (and maybe not so stupid in the long run....did we know they were going to do it....I think so) bombed Pearl Harbor, but what did we do in return. So the ad for me showed what it would be like to have war on our soil and so the breathless pace of the ad, because that is what you feel in those types of situations--like you can not breathe. Do you think really and truly, if we keep doing what we are doing that sooner or later, it won't happen? Furthermore, we, while this look in another direction diversion goes on, have been losing our constitutional rights day after day. We complain about other countries where the right to protest is destroyed, and here? What is happening? What would the founding father's say? Who now controls this country? Do we still have a democracy? What are we leaning towards with this capitalistic society where business, banking and politics has lost it sense of integrity to the hilt if you ask me and get away with it. What will happen if people get fed up and revolt? Will we be any better than what we have been fighting. Right now we are so far from agreement with each other that the whole political process is generally thwarted and we just want to blame the other camp, creating a war dynamic in the minds of the majority of Americans. What happens when you don't want to come to terms with something in yourself? You either fragment or your project it out? And so, the multitude of Christian groups, etc.

So here we have another situation where those wanting to protect themselves from being bullied or others from being bullied become bullies themselves. A good percentage of the American population feels, right now, like bugs on the windshield and that my dears is very very dangerous. I really do not know what Jung said about war directly or about the second coming, but I do believe that it is internal, can be experienced through many processes and is the only way, when there are enough blossoms of it, that society will come out of this barbaric state we have been in for centuries. I certainly am not one of those blossoms yet. I struggle day after day with this that is in a state of knowingness in the center of my being...every day. I am not detached enough looking at what is happening and it is very frustrating for me, especially seeing how fearful, asleep and in denial people are. The only thing stopping people from being friends with everyone, in my book, is that we are in an uncivilized hell where we are invested in looking for how to blame and how to disagree instead of looking for agreement. That's it for me. Saying this, no I do not believe the best protection for war is to prepare for war. I believe, and I think Jung would agree if I take the liberty, is that the best protection against war is for as many people as possible to find the battle inside themselves and solve it. Personally, I think I should shut my mouth, because a good job of this I don't think I have done, as of yet.

One last thing, I have friends who are so vested in the law of silence that they never disagree or confront anything in the world around them. They think this is not being disagreeable. I am not talking about this type of denial where the disagreement is never resolved, but we are taught to believe in that type of agreement. On the internet about a year ago was a .jpg of a young woman in a group overseas. She was very unsophisticated looking in very humble clothes and she was holding a sign that said, "Silence is a war crime." I say this clearly, "I am not good at all of this. I am still trying to sort out something, which is very difficult for me, but I am trying."

No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.454 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/4135 - Release Date: 01/10/12 19:34:00

January 11, 2012

I must come back to this post. It has been revolving in my head and

I cannot let it go.

This quote by Jung was stated.

>>"Communistic or Socialistic democracy is an upheaval of the unfit against attempts at order. Consider the stay-in strikes in France, the former socialistic upheavals in Germany and Italy. This state of disorder called democratic freedom or liberalism brings its own reaction - enforced order. In as much as the European nations are incapable of living in a chronic state of disorder, they will make attempts at enforced order, or fascism .. A decent oligarchy - call it aristocracy if you like - is the most ideal form of government.. Without the aristocratic ideal there is no stability. You in England owe it to the "gentleman" that you possess the world."<<"Without the aristocratic ideal there is no stability."Well , Really ??

As much as I love Jung and have all his collected works, and as much as his writings

have changed my life for the better, I have shelved many of his statements as he was

not always right. This is normal, no one is a God.

To say the above, and to totally accept it is insanity.

The gentlemen in England have caused more wars than any peasant or

surf ever dreamed of being capable. The French revolution that ended up decapitating

most of the aristocracy was no one else's fault than the very aristocracy that could not see

the hunger and the misery in the very streets of their land. " Let them eat cake" replied Antoinette when she was told her people hunger.The Czars of Russia were assassinated because of the revolution brought about by the very same insensitive respect for their own Russian people who hungered in the streets.

WW1 was planned for 20 years, they just couldn't get it started. Finally in 1914 they managed it with the assassination of Franz Ferdinand of the Hapsburg Dynasty. The Austro-Hungarian

Empire at the time was the most flourishing Empire of Europe. It had law and order second to none in Europe. They had prosperity and everyone in Europe wanted to emigrate into that

country for jobs.

A big change was happening in Europe at the time. The BIG BUSINESS BANKERS

especially from England were infiltrating governments of countries to accept their banking system of interests ect. The Hapsburgs said they did not need them as it was already a very

prosperous country in itself and they had the Gold to sustain them. Over and over the bankers kept trying. In the end they orchestrated WW1. That was the end of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. They chopped it up into pieces giving half the Empire to Romania, a big portion to the Czechs as Czechoslovakia, a big portion to Serbia, some to Germany and some to Yugoslavia. This was the Versailles Treaty headed by the British and the French. Banks were then free to invade.

So let us not be totally blinded by Aristocratic values. Some were virtuous, some were

Tyrants. The money changers always win in the end. They are the true rulers , even of the

aristocrats. Their power of money have brought down Empires. This is going on today.

The Rothchilds estate is worth $4 trillion today. Do we believe they want more money?

Power, control and dynasty is what they are after. And what of the other 20 families that

rule the world today all in unison?

All Best,

Steve Kalec

January 12, 2012

Hello Steve,

I'm having some difficulty getting my thoughts into words, so please

bear with me.

With Jung's statement "Without the aristocratic ideal there is no

stability" taken out of context, I would have to completely agree

with your statement, "To say the above, and to totally accept it is

insanity." I would need to know exactly Jung's definition of

"aristocratic" before I could accept it. But putting it back into

the context, could it be that what Jung was saying is that no matter

what government is in place ("call it aristocracy if you like"), it

is good that said government has an ideal? Moreover, could the

entire paragraph be implying that when "a government" (again - "call

it aristocracy if you like" ;-) has a "good"(a.k.a. gentlemanly)

ideal, goodness results. An example of a gentlemanly ideal might be

"to serve the people." Is it possible that in his statement "You in

England owe it to the "gentleman" that you possess the world," that

Jung was trying to applaud the "gentlemanly" actions that England

took? It seems to me that he was trying to show that extremes

("socialistic upheavals" vs. "enforced order, or fascism") aren't

what brings results, but it was the "gentlemanly" actions that

resulted in England's ability to "possess the world?"

I don't know, what do you think? Am I explaining myself clearly?

Thanks,

Robin

I must come back to this post. It

has been revolving in my head and

I cannot let it go.

This quote by Jung was stated.

>>"Communistic or Socialistic democracy is an

upheaval of the unfit against attempts at order. Consider

the stay-in strikes in France, the former socialistic

upheavals in Germany and Italy. This state of disorder

called democratic freedom or liberalism brings its own

reaction - enforced order. In as much as the European

nations are incapable of living in a chronic state of

disorder, they will make attempts at enforced order, or

fascism .. A decent oligarchy - call it aristocracy if you

like - is the most ideal form of government.. Without the

aristocratic ideal there is no stability. You in England owe

it to the "gentleman" that you possess the world."<<

"Without the aristocratic ideal there is no stability."

Well , Really ??

As much as I love Jung and have all

his collected works, and as much as his writings

have changed my life for the

better, I have shelved many of his statements as he was

not always right. This is normal,

no one is a God.

To say the above, and to totally

accept it is insanity.

The gentlemen in England have

caused more wars than any peasant or

surf ever dreamed of being capable.

The French revolution that ended up decapitating

most of the aristocracy was no one

else's fault than the very aristocracy that could not see

the hunger and the misery in the

very streets of their land. " Let them eat cake" replied Antoinette when she was told her

people hunger.The

Czars of Russia were assassinated because of the revolution

brought about by the very same insensitive respect for their own Russian people who

hungered in the streets.

WW1 was planned for 20 years, they

just couldn't get it started. Finally in 1914 they managed it

with the assassination of Franz Ferdinand of the Hapsburg

Dynasty. The Austro-Hungarian

Empire at the time was the most

flourishing Empire of Europe. It had law and order second to

none in Europe. They had prosperity and everyone in Europe

wanted to emigrate into that

country for jobs.

A big change was happening in

Europe at the time. The BIG BUSINESS BANKERS

especially from England were

infiltrating governments of countries to accept their banking

system of interests ect. The Hapsburgs said they did not need

them as it was already a very

prosperous country in itself and

they had the Gold to sustain them. Over and over the bankers

kept trying. In the end they orchestrated WW1. That was the

end of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. They chopped it up into pieces giving half the Empire to

Romania, a big portion to the Czechs as Czechoslovakia, a big

portion to Serbia, some to Germany and some to Yugoslavia. This was the Versailles Treaty headed by

the British and the French. Banks were then free to invade.

So let us not be totally blinded by

Aristocratic values. Some were virtuous, some were

Tyrants. The money changers always

win in the end. They are the true rulers , even of the

aristocrats. Their power of

money have brought down Empires. This is going on today.

The Rothchilds estate is worth $4

trillion today. Do we believe they want more money?

Power, control and dynasty is what

they are after. And what of the other 20 families that

rule the world today all in unison?

All Best,

Steve Kalec

--

"Good health is not the absence of symptoms, it is the presence

of peace." - Neale Walsh

http://www.healthforlifecoloncare.com/

http://www.traditionalnutrition.org/

January 12, 2012

I have found that some people who are lovers of Jung – most of whom

(inexplicably to me, I must confess) seem to be of the " progressive " political

stripe – appear to find themselves embarrassed about some of Jung's political

views, his views on the proper relationships between the sexes, and other

political or " social " issues. Therefore they argue something as follows: Well,

Jung was a brilliant psychiatrist with many great insights into the human soul,

but he was also a man of his time, he wasn't perfect, and unfortunately he had

some of these wacky political ideas (which, it is implied, we should just

ignore).

My view, on the other hand, is that Jung's political or " social " views are of a

piece with his so-called individual psychology – they are completely consistent,

one flowing from the other. It is one psychology. Jung's political and social

views are part of the warp and woof of his overall view of human nature. Even

his views about such things as inflation, the abandonment of the gold standard,

or modern art, fit.

Whatever one might say about Jung, he was no egalitarian. " Nature is

aristocratic " he says ( " The Psychology of Dictatorship, 1936). That does apply

also to human nature: " Not everybody has virtues, but everybody has the low

animal instincts, the basic primitive caveman suggestibility, the suspicions and

vicious traits of the savage " ( " Diagnosing the Dictators " , 1938). To say the

least, for Jung, " enlightenment " will not be universal. This means that the

savage or bad parts of human nature must be otherwise contained, and contained

not only by individual teaching (in particular, religious teaching), but also by

social or political institutions (like aristocracy). I find Jung to be at most

reserved in his praise of democracy, dismissive of anything that smacks of

socialism, and and supportive of benevolently inegalitarian regimes. In 1961,

in an interview with Serrano, Jung stated that " (E)veryone must live in

accordance with his nature, both individually and collectively. The best example

of that method is to be found in India, and the worst, I suppose, is in Russia.

Russia is a country with a magnificent organization, but it doesn't function at

all, as is obvious in its agricultural failures. The Russians haven't bothered

to discover what man really is; it simply try to treat him as a wholly rational

and mechanical being. Obviously what is necessary for them is not to devise a

theory about agriculture, but to devise a theory about man, and to impose that

theory or concept. " For some time, this passage puzzled me – obviously, I get

the point about Russia, but to praise India this highly? On reflection, though,

it makes sense despite India's ongoing problems with poverty and its other

problems. My interpretation would be that it reflects for Jung a coming together

of the best of the West and the East – Eastern spiritual practices, and British

government, to put it succinctly.

When it comes to the ordering of the individual soul, as opposed to the ordering

of the collective, Jung favors organized religion, and in particular he praises

Catholicism: " Catholicism in particular, with its ceremonial and liturgy, gives

fantasy a priceless support, for which reason I have found in my practice that

believing Catholics suffer less from neurosis and are easier to cure than

Protestants and Jews. For the need of religion, for its validity as a primary

instinct of man, there are abundant proofs reaching back to the dawn of time.

Then it was part of man's unconscious, and now it is part of his conscious,

psychic diet …. ( " Three Versions of a Press Conference in Vienna, " 1928).

And, to repeat, one of the great advantages of religion is that it informs human

beings of their dark side – that it acquaints him with the devil, as it were –

and also provides a means for coping with the dark side. Hence, for example, the

doctrine of original sin is, according to Jung, " most salutory. "

regards,

Dan Watkins

>

> I must come back to this post. It has been revolving in my head and

> I cannot let it go.

>

> This quote by Jung was stated.

>

> >> " Communistic or Socialistic democracy is an upheaval of the unfit against

attempts at order. Consider the stay-in strikes in France, the former

socialistic upheavals in Germany and Italy. This state of disorder called

democratic freedom or liberalism brings its own reaction - enforced order. In as

much as the European nations are incapable of living in a chronic state of

disorder, they will make attempts at enforced order, or fascism .. A decent

oligarchy - call it aristocracy if you like - is the most ideal form of

government.. Without the aristocratic ideal there is no stability. You in

England owe it to the " gentleman " that you possess the world. " <<

>

> " Without the aristocratic ideal there is no stability. "

> Well , Really ??

>

> As much as I love Jung and have all his collected works, and as much as his

writings

> have changed my life for the better, I have shelved many of his statements as

he was

> not always right. This is normal, no one is a God.

>

> To say the above, and to totally accept it is insanity.

> The gentlemen in England have caused more wars than any peasant or

> surf ever dreamed of being capable. The French revolution that ended up

decapitating

> most of the aristocracy was no one else's fault than the very aristocracy that

could not see

> the hunger and the misery in the very streets of their land. " Let them eat

cake " replied Antoinette when she was told her people hunger.The Czars of Russia

were assassinated because of the revolution brought about by the very same

insensitive respect for their own Russian people who hungered in the streets.

>

> WW1 was planned for 20 years, they just couldn't get it started. Finally in

1914 they managed it with the assassination of Franz Ferdinand of the Hapsburg

Dynasty. The Austro-Hungarian

> Empire at the time was the most flourishing Empire of Europe. It had law and

order second to none in Europe. They had prosperity and everyone in Europe

wanted to emigrate into that

> country for jobs.

>

> A big change was happening in Europe at the time. The BIG BUSINESS BANKERS

> especially from England were infiltrating governments of countries to accept

their banking system of interests ect. The Hapsburgs said they did not need them

as it was already a very

> prosperous country in itself and they had the Gold to sustain them. Over and

over the bankers kept trying. In the end they orchestrated WW1. That was the end

of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. They chopped it up into pieces giving half the

Empire to Romania, a big portion to the Czechs as Czechoslovakia, a big portion

to Serbia, some to Germany and some to Yugoslavia. This was the Versailles

Treaty headed by the British and the French. Banks were then free to invade.

>

> So let us not be totally blinded by Aristocratic values. Some were virtuous,

some were

> Tyrants. The money changers always win in the end. They are the true rulers ,

even of the

> aristocrats. Their power of money have brought down Empires. This is going on

today.

> The Rothchilds estate is worth $4 trillion today. Do we believe they want more

money?

> Power, control and dynasty is what they are after. And what of the other 20

families that

> rule the world today all in unison?

>

> All Best,

> Steve Kalec

>

January 12, 2012

Hi Robin,

You didn't ask me, but "aristocracy" means "rule of the best," which

Jung surely knew. The problem, as always, is how to bring that

about. Jung repeatedly praised British aristocracy, presumably as a

"real world" example of a decent regime.

best regards,

Dan Watkins

Hello Steve,

I'm having some difficulty getting my thoughts into words,

so please bear with me.

With Jung's statement "Without the aristocratic ideal

there is no stability" taken out of context, I would have

to completely agree with your statement, "To say the

above, and to totally accept it is insanity." I would

need to know exactly Jung's definition of "aristocratic"

before I could accept it. But putting it back into the

context, could it be that what Jung was saying is that no

matter what government is in place ("call it aristocracy

if you like"), it is good that said government has an

ideal? Moreover, could the entire paragraph be implying

that when "a government" (again - "call it aristocracy if

you like" ;-) has a "good"(a.k.a. gentlemanly) ideal,

goodness results. An example of a gentlemanly ideal might

be "to serve the people." Is it possible that in his

statement "You in England owe it to the "gentleman" that

you possess the world," that Jung was trying to applaud

the "gentlemanly" actions that England took? It seems to

me that he was trying to show that extremes ("socialistic

upheavals" vs. "enforced order, or fascism") aren't what

brings results, but it was the "gentlemanly" actions that

resulted in England's ability to "possess the world?"

I don't know, what do you think? Am I explaining myself

clearly?

Thanks,

Robin

I must come back to this

post. It has been revolving in my head and

I cannot let it go.

This quote by Jung was

stated.

>>"Communistic or Socialistic

democracy is an upheaval of the unfit against

attempts at order. Consider the stay-in strikes in

France, the former socialistic upheavals in Germany

and Italy. This state of disorder called democratic

freedom or liberalism brings its own reaction -

enforced order. In as much as the European nations

are incapable of living in a chronic state of

disorder, they will make attempts at enforced order,

or fascism .. A decent oligarchy - call it

aristocracy if you like - is the most ideal form of

government.. Without the aristocratic ideal there is

no stability. You in England owe it to the

"gentleman" that you possess the world."<<

"Without the aristocratic ideal there is no

stability."

Well , Really ??

As much as I love Jung and

have all his collected works, and as much as his

writings

have changed my life for

the better, I have shelved many of his statements as

he was

not always right. This is

normal, no one is a God.

To say the above, and to

totally accept it is insanity.

The gentlemen in England

have caused more wars than any peasant or

surf ever dreamed of being

capable. The French revolution that ended up

decapitating

most of the aristocracy was

no one else's fault than the very aristocracy that

could not see

the hunger and the misery

in the very streets of their land. " Let them eat

cake" replied Antoinette

when she was told her people hunger.The Czars of Russia were

assassinated because of the revolution brought about

by the very same insensitive respect for their own Russian people who

hungered in the streets.

WW1 was planned for 20

years, they just couldn't get it started. Finally in

1914 they managed it with the assassination of Franz

Ferdinand of the Hapsburg Dynasty. The

Austro-Hungarian

Empire at the time was the

most flourishing Empire of Europe. It had law and

order second to none in Europe. They had prosperity

and everyone in Europe wanted to emigrate into that

country for jobs.

A big change was

happening in Europe at the time. The BIG BUSINESS

BANKERS

especially from England

were infiltrating governments of countries to accept

their banking system of interests ect. The Hapsburgs

said they did not need them as it was already a very

prosperous country in

itself and they had the Gold to sustain them. Over and

over the bankers kept trying. In the end they

orchestrated WW1. That was the end of the

Austro-Hungarian Empire. They chopped it up into pieces giving half the Empire

to Romania, a big portion to the Czechs as

Czechoslovakia, a big portion to Serbia, some to

Germany and some to Yugoslavia. This was the Versailles Treaty

headed by the British and the French. Banks were then

free to invade.

So let us not be totally

blinded by Aristocratic values. Some were virtuous,

some were

Tyrants. The money changers

always win in the end. They are the true rulers , even

of the

aristocrats. Their power of

money have brought down Empires. This is going on

today.

The Rothchilds estate is

worth $4 trillion today. Do we believe they want more

money?

Power, control and dynasty

is what they are after. And what of the other 20

families that

rule the world today all in

unison?

All Best,

Steve Kalec

--

"Good health is not the absence of symptoms, it is the

presence of peace." - Neale Walsh

http://www.healthforlifecoloncare.com/

http://www.traditionalnutrition.org/

January 12, 2012

Hi Robin,

You didn't ask me, but " aristocracy " means " rule of the best, " which Jung surely

knew. The problem, as always, is how to bring that about. Jung repeatedly

praised British aristocracy, presumably as a " real world " example of a decent

regime.

best regards,

Dan Watkins

> >

> > I must come back to this post. It has been revolving in my head and

> > I cannot let it go.

> > This quote by Jung was stated.

> > >> " Communistic or Socialistic democracy is an upheaval of the unfit

> > against attempts at order. Consider the stay-in strikes in France, the

> > former socialistic upheavals in Germany and Italy. This state of

> > disorder called democratic freedom or liberalism brings its own

> > reaction - enforced order. In as much as the European nations are

> > incapable of living in a chronic state of disorder, they will make

> > attempts at enforced order, or fascism .. A decent oligarchy - call it

> > aristocracy if you like - is the most ideal form of government..

> > Without the aristocratic ideal there is no stability. You in England

> > owe it to the " gentleman " that you possess the world. " <<

> >

> > " Without the aristocratic ideal there is no stability. "

> > Well , Really ??

> > As much as I love Jung and have all his collected works, and as much

> > as his writings

> > have changed my life for the better, I have shelved many of his

> > statements as he was

> > not always right. This is normal, no one is a God.

> > To say the above, and to totally accept it is insanity.

> > The gentlemen in England have caused more wars than any peasant or

> > surf ever dreamed of being capable. The French revolution that ended

> > up decapitating

> > most of the aristocracy was no one else's fault than the very

> > aristocracy that could not see

> > the hunger and the misery in the very streets of their land. " Let

> > them eat cake " replied Antoinette when she was told her people

> > hunger.The Czars of Russia were assassinated because of the revolution

> > brought about by the very same insensitive respect for their own

> > Russian people who hungered in the streets.

> > WW1 was planned for 20 years, they just couldn't get it started.

> > Finally in 1914 they managed it with the assassination of Franz

> > Ferdinand of the Hapsburg Dynasty. The Austro-Hungarian

> > Empire at the time was the most flourishing Empire of Europe. It had

> > law and order second to none in Europe. They had prosperity and

> > everyone in Europe wanted to emigrate into that

> > country for jobs.

> > A big change was happening in Europe at the time. The BIG BUSINESS

> > BANKERS

> > especially from England were infiltrating governments of countries to

> > accept their banking system of interests ect. The Hapsburgs said they

> > did not need them as it was already a very

> > prosperous country in itself and they had the Gold to sustain them.

> > Over and over the bankers kept trying. In the end they orchestrated

> > WW1. That was the end of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. They chopped it

> > up into pieces giving half the Empire to Romania, a big portion to the

> > Czechs as Czechoslovakia, a big portion to Serbia, some to Germany and

> > some to Yugoslavia. This was the Versailles Treaty headed by the

> > British and the French. Banks were then free to invade.

> > So let us not be totally blinded by Aristocratic values. Some were

> > virtuous, some were

> > Tyrants. The money changers always win in the end. They are the true

> > rulers , even of the

> > aristocrats. Their power of money have brought down Empires. This is

> > going on today.

> > The Rothchilds estate is worth $4 trillion today. Do we believe they

> > want more money?

> > Power, control and dynasty is what they are after. And what of the

> > other 20 families that

> > rule the world today all in unison?

> > All Best,

> > Steve Kalec

> >

>

> --

> * " Good health is not the absence of symptoms, it is the presence of

> peace. " - Neale Walsh

> http://www.healthforlifecoloncare.com/

> http://www.traditionalnutrition.org/*

>

January 12, 2012

Yes, yes. That's it exactly, Dan. I wish I could have expressed it

so simply. I believe Jung was trying to define "best" by saying it

is a government composed of gentlemen - "gentle men." Of course, I

hope that includes women, too ;-). And these gentle men would work

within a balance without succumbing to the extremes we as humans can

tend towards when we are feeling anxious. It's funny, I've been

watching a fun British television show lately called "Merlin," and

the BBC advertising for their American cable channel found on the

DVD seems to illustrate they may be finding a balance through poking

a bit of fun at themselves. I can't remember the quote verbatim,

but I think it goes something like this... "Thousands of years of

unexpressed emotion makes for good drama." There is quite a bit

more to the ad, and I find it incredibly funny. If you haven't seen

the British comedy "Death at a Funeral," I highly recommend it if

you want a good belly laugh.

Cheers,

Robin

Hi Robin,

You didn't ask me, but "aristocracy" means "rule of the best," which Jung surely knew. The problem, as always, is how to bring that about. Jung repeatedly praised British aristocracy, presumably as a "real world" example of a decent regime.

best regards,

Dan Watkins

I must come back to this post. It has been revolving in my head and

I cannot let it go.

This quote by Jung was stated.

"Communistic or Socialistic democracy is an upheaval of the unfit

against attempts at order. Consider the stay-in strikes in France, the former socialistic upheavals in Germany and Italy. This state of disorder called democratic freedom or liberalism brings its own reaction - enforced order. In as much as the European nations are incapable of living in a chronic state of disorder, they will make attempts at enforced order, or fascism .. A decent oligarchy - call it aristocracy if you like - is the most ideal form of government.. Without the aristocratic ideal there is no stability. You in England owe it to the "gentleman" that you possess the world."<<