Re: Jung must be PC! (was : impressive ad about our military)

[Guest guest]

....exactly.

For those of you who don't like my sarcasm and

persist that Jews are more neurotic, don't like their

depth-perception, ability to discuss, to see things from

a myriad of angles, which is why they make good doctors

and lawyers (LOL) and have always been known to be

involved in humanitarian causes, along with knowing how

to bargain (or do you call that cheap......sorry another

bit of sarcasm), I will tell you my sarcasm is way

better than what my writer's tongue could have said to

you.

I see. I am attempted to say, "bring it," but will resist the

temptation. Your writing skills are indeed apparent. Kind of Joycean,

really.

So this is how you "wage peace," is it? With sarcasm and nasty

implications? You would change the world with your "enlightenment,"

but you can't keep a civil tongue with an online interlocutor. If I

were you, I might ask for a refund from that "peace studies"

teacher.

Once again, and this time please find it, tell me

where I particularly said Jung was anti-Semitic (find

where I said those words please).

"First, if you redo your reading, you will see I never said Jung was

an anti-Semite. I was referring to the darlings in the group who

had the nerve to glorify the elite (especially in this day and age

with what is going on) and then also say bravo to Catholic myths and

then say that Jews were more neurotic, so I spoke of the neurotic

things in the Catholic church."

It was Jung who said that Jews (and Protestants) were "more

neurotic" - it was not "the darlings in the group." Your implication

seemed to be that this was somehow an anti-Semitic statement. Your

heated response reinforced that impression. If, however, that was

not your intent, then my apologies.

Furthermore, again, it is easy to take things out of

context, so I forgive you for doing so. Next on my hit

parade here, I don't like quotes out of context and out

of date, especially when they are comments that lead to

some very extreme thinking.

The citations I made are, well, cited - you could look them up. If I

missed any, I am willing to provide them (these posts are quick ones

that I zip off in odd moments). I don't pull them out of context, I

don't think. They are true to the general thrust and tone of the

sources.

How can Jung be "out of date?"

"Lead to some very extreme thinking." I'm sorry, but Jung was an

"extreme thinker" in more ways than one. Are you suggesting that we

have some moral duty to sanitize him, bowdlerize him, make him

politically correct? Instead, let's see what he says and see what we

can learn from it.

Furthermore, one can wonder is this a

Catholic/Christian Jungian group or a Jungian group. It

seems for many it is the former.

Why do a few remarks about Jung's views on religion make it a

"Catholic/Christian" Jungian group? Jung's work cover many things

(albeit imo with an underlying unifying thread) - why should we not

consider as many of them as we like? Or do you feel that this should

be solely a "thanks for sharing" kind of group?

Do I need to start quoting Buddha hear and many

others whose writings were not created by the original

teachers. At least, we who come from the Jewish race

have the brains to realize there are many many ways that

things can be interpreted.....thank you very

much....which is why Jews have many the Torah and then

half a dozen other books which debate meanings....and

you do have groups of Jews who have the brains to

realize that not everything is appropriate for the

times. Now we also know, right, that Jung was into

alchemy. And where does the Tarot come from the Kabalah

......the Jewish mysticism for the tree of life.

Jung was a respectful student of the Kabalah.

Now, I'm telling you straight.....no

sarcasm.....that I find these remarks, from someone is a

humanitarian, not Jewish by chosen religion and is

pretty eclectic in there religious beliefs. That the

kind of comments you make about Jews, whether or not

Jung made them (he was not perfect) is disgusting

And there we are.

Jung was making an observation about the group psychology or

different peoples (in this case, different religions) - he was not

making a slur. There are differences in group psychology, you know

(Jung describes American culture as extremely extraverted - is that

a slur?). Further, he made the very same observation about

Protestants, *of which he was one*. Why, I wonder, are you so upset

that Jung makes a remark about Jewish psychology, but do not get

upset that he makes the same remark about Protestants. To repeat,

Jung's point was about the psychological richness of Catholicism as

a "psychic system."

and if you know anything about the theories of how

blacks can dance have lower intelligence etc. and don't

have the capacity to realize that people who are bond in

any form to areas where they are only amongst their own

and can not communicate or get education to climb up the

latter will develop bizarre traits of the abuse they are

suffering just like any child who is abused by their

father or mother or the powers that be. If you don't

like hearing that too bad. Okay, is that better than

sarcasm. You got it straight now. Or are you going to

tell me how the Jews killed Christ, when Christ was a

Jew and a percentage of Christians come from the Jewish

race and it was not Jewish traditon to murder people on

crucifixes as far as I know.

How the heck did we get here? How did we get from, "In my

observation as a psychiatrist, Jews and Protestants are usually more

neurotic than Catholics, and here's why" to this? Again, you imply

that Jung was an anti- Semite with all this "Christ killing"

nonsense. Jung never said any of that. You are attacking a straw

man.

How long would you like to argue this. Till

Easter? Yes, I got sarcastic. How about putting me in

the category of sarcastic humanitarian.

How about sarcastic moralist?

regards,

Dan Watkins

Maybe, I can start a new trend. Wouldn't that be

nice. Then people could quote me.

[Guest guest]

Dan, Roseroberta has illuminated something several on this list have acknowledged about this group and other Jungian groups as well.That is, the elitist tendency. It might be important to look at the essence of what she( the messenger) is saying, rather than to dissect, personalize and defend. And your Joyce related remark was judgmental and elitist, and are you aware that you actually agree with Roseroberta about the elitism, at least w/in the context of this particular group? It seems you are against elitism on the one hand and demonstrate it on the other.

Best,

Gail

Re: Jung must be PC! (was : impressive ad about our military)

....exactly.

For those of you who don't like my sarcasm and persist that Jews are more neurotic, don't like their depth-perception, ability to discuss, to see things from a myriad of angles, which is why they make good doctors and lawyers (LOL) and have always been known to be involved in humanitarian causes, along with knowing how to bargain (or do you call that cheap......sorry another bit of sarcasm), I will tell you my sarcasm is way better than what my writer's tongue could have said to you.

I see. I am attempted to say, "bring it," but will resist the temptation. Your writing skills are indeed apparent. Kind of Joycean, really.

So this is how you "wage peace," is it? With sarcasm and nasty implications? You would change the world with your "enlightenment," but you can't keep a civil tongue with an online interlocutor. If I were you, I might ask for a refund from that "peace studies" teacher.

Once again, and this time please find it, tell me where I particularly said Jung was anti-Semitic (find where I said those words please).

"First, if you redo your reading, you will see I never said Jung was an anti-Semite. I was referring to the darlings in the group who had the nerve to glorify the elite (especially in this day and age with what is going on) and then also say bravo to Catholic myths and then say that Jews were more neurotic, so I spoke of the neurotic things in the Catholic church."

It was Jung who said that Jews (and Protestants) were "more neurotic" - it was not "the darlings in the group." Your implication seemed to be that this was somehow an anti-Semitic statement. Your heated response reinforced that impression. If, however, that was not your intent, then my apologies.

Furthermore, again, it is easy to take things out of context, so I forgive you for doing so. Next on my hit parade here, I don't like quotes out of context and out of date, especially when they are comments that lead to some very extreme thinking.

The citations I made are, well, cited - you could look them up. If I missed any, I am willing to provide them (these posts are quick ones that I zip off in odd moments). I don't pull them out of context, I don't think. They are true to the general thrust and tone of the sources.

How can Jung be "out of date?"

"Lead to some very extreme thinking." I'm sorry, but Jung was an "extreme thinker" in more ways than one. Are you suggesting that we have some moral duty to sanitize him, bowdlerize him, make him politically correct? Instead, let's see what he says and see what we can learn from it.

Furthermore, one can wonder is this a Catholic/Christian Jungian group or a Jungian group. It seems for many it is the former.

Why do a few remarks about Jung's views on religion make it a "Catholic/Christian" Jungian group? Jung's work cover many things (albeit imo with an underlying unifying thread) - why should we not consider as many of them as we like? Or do you feel that this should be solely a "thanks for sharing" kind of group?

Do I need to start quoting Buddha hear and many others whose writings were not created by the original teachers. At least, we who come from the Jewish race have the brains to realize there are many many ways that things can be interpreted.....thank you very much....which is why Jews have many the Torah and then half a dozen other books which debate meanings....and you do have groups of Jews who have the brains to realize that not everything is appropriate for the times. Now we also know, right, that Jung was into alchemy. And where does the Tarot come from the Kabalah .....the Jewish mysticism for the tree of life.

Jung was a respectful student of the Kabalah.

Now, I'm telling you straight.....no sarcasm.....that I find these remarks, from someone is a humanitarian, not Jewish by chosen religion and is pretty eclectic in there religious beliefs. That the kind of comments you make about Jews, whether or not Jung made them (he was not perfect) is disgusting

And there we are.

Jung was making an observation about the group psychology or different peoples (in this case, different religions) - he was not making a slur. There are differences in group psychology, you know (Jung describes American culture as extremely extraverted - is that a slur?). Further, he made the very same observation about Protestants, *of which he was one*. Why, I wonder, are you so upset that Jung makes a remark about Jewish psychology, but do not get upset that he makes the same remark about Protestants. To repeat, Jung's point was about the psychological richness of Catholicism as a "psychic system."

and if you know anything about the theories of how blacks can dance have lower intelligence etc. and don't have the capacity to realize that people who are bond in any form to areas where they are only amongst their own and can not communicate or get education to climb up the latter will develop bizarre traits of the abuse they are suffering just like any child who is abused by their father or mother or the powers that be. If you don't like hearing that too bad. Okay, is that better than sarcasm. You got it straight now. Or are you going to tell me how the Jews killed Christ, when Christ was a Jew and a percentage of Christians come from the Jewish race and it was not Jewish traditon to murder people on crucifixes as far as I know.

How the heck did we get here? How did we get from, "In my observation as a psychiatrist, Jews and Protestants are usually more neurotic than Catholics, and here's why" to this? Again, you imply that Jung was an anti- Semite with all this "Christ killing" nonsense. Jung never said any of that. You are attacking a straw man.

How long would you like to argue this. Till Easter? Yes, I got sarcastic. How about putting me in the category of sarcastic humanitarian.

How about sarcastic moralist?

regards,

Dan Watkins

Maybe, I can start a new trend. Wouldn't that be nice. Then people could quote me.

[Guest guest]

Dear Gail,

Thanks for the civil response

 

Dan, Roseroberta has illuminated something several

on this list have acknowledged about this group and

other Jungian groups as well.That is, the elitist

tendency. It might be important to look at the essence

of what she( the messenger) is saying, rather

than to dissect, personalize and defend.

When I am attacked, I will defend. When I am attacked personally, I

will personalize. It is not my place here to be a verbal punching

bag, and I will not meekly accept an impertinent attack. As for

dissection, I think it is another word for analysis, and I don't

know how to interpret an argument or to defend against a verbal

attack except by analysis.

I don't see it as my duty to "look beyond" my interlocutor's words

to the felt meaning, to listen with the third ear, or any of that -

that is, it is not, I think, my duty here to try to act as a

therapist. A therapist might be verbally attacked with impunity by a

patient, but I don't see that as my role here.

And your Joyce related remark was judgmental

and elitist,

It might have been out of line, but when one boasts, one risks being

called on it, esp. when that boast also contains a threat.

and are you aware that you actually agree with

Roseroberta about the elitism, at least w/in the

context of this particular group? It seems you are

against elitism on the one hand and demonstrate it on

the other.

I am not against elitism as Jung understands it. (To repeat, it has

nothing necessarily to do with money, esp. new money, and, fwiw, I

would say that some of the moneyed are very vulgar). Elitism

maintains the standards and prevents leveling. It honors the genuine

natural differences among human beings. It is both a recognition of

and a defense of the individual.

best regards,

Dan Watkins

 

Best,

Gail

Re: Jung must be PC! (was :

impressive ad about our military)

 

On 1/16/2012 10:22 AM, Roseroberta

ing wrote:

 

....exactly.

For those of you who don't like

my sarcasm and persist that Jews are

more neurotic, don't like their

depth-perception, ability to

discuss, to see things from a myriad

of angles, which is why they make

good doctors and lawyers (LOL) and

have always been known to be

involved in humanitarian causes,

along with knowing how to bargain

(or do you call that

cheap......sorry another bit of

sarcasm), I will tell you my sarcasm

is way better than what my writer's

tongue could have said to you.

I see. I am attempted to say, "bring it,"

but will resist the temptation. Your writing

skills are indeed apparent. Kind of Joycean,

really.

So this is how you "wage peace," is it? With

sarcasm and nasty implications? You would

change the world with your "enlightenment,"

but you can't keep a civil tongue with an

online interlocutor. If I were you, I might

ask for a refund from that "peace studies"

teacher.

Once again, and this time

please find it, tell me where I

particularly said Jung was

anti-Semitic (find where I said

those words please).

"First, if you redo your reading, you will

see I never said Jung was an anti-Semite.  I

was referring to the darlings in the group

who had the nerve to glorify the elite

(especially in this day and age with what is

going on) and then also say bravo to

Catholic myths and then say that Jews were

more neurotic, so I spoke of the neurotic

things in the Catholic church."

It was Jung who said that Jews (and

Protestants) were "more neurotic" - it was

not "the darlings in the group." Your

implication seemed to be that this was

somehow an anti-Semitic statement. Your

heated response reinforced that impression.

If, however, that was not your intent, then

my apologies.

Furthermore, again, it is

easy to take things out of

context, so I forgive you for

doing so.  Next on my hit parade

here, I don't like quotes out of

context and out of date,

especially when they are

comments that lead to some very

extreme thinking.

The citations I made are, well, cited - you

could look them up. If I missed any, I am

willing to provide them (these posts are

quick ones that I zip off in odd moments). I

don't pull them out of context, I don't

think. They are true to the general thrust

and tone of the sources.

How can Jung be "out of date?"

"Lead to some very extreme thinking." I'm

sorry, but Jung was an "extreme thinker" in

more ways than one. Are you suggesting that

we have some moral duty to sanitize him,

bowdlerize him, make him politically

correct? Instead, let's see what he says and

see what we can learn from it.

 

Furthermore, one can wonder

is this a Catholic/Christian

Jungian group or a Jungian

group.  It seems for many it is

the former.

Why do a few remarks about Jung's views on

religion make it a "Catholic/Christian"

Jungian group? Jung's work cover many things

(albeit imo with an underlying unifying

thread) - why should we not consider as many

of them as we like? Or do you feel that this

should be solely a "thanks for sharing" kind

of group?

  Do I need to start quoting

Buddha hear and many others

whose writings were not created

by the original teachers.  At

least, we who come from the

Jewish race have the brains to

realize there are many many ways

that things can be

interpreted.....thank you very

much....which is why Jews have

many the Torah and then half a

dozen other books which debate

meanings....and you do have

groups of Jews who have the

brains to realize that not

everything is appropriate for

the times.  Now we also know,

right, that Jung was into

alchemy.  And where does the

Tarot come from the Kabalah

......the Jewish mysticism for

the tree of life.

Jung was a respectful student of the

Kabalah.

  Now, I'm telling you

straight.....no sarcasm.....that

I find these remarks, from

someone is a humanitarian, not

Jewish by chosen religion and is

pretty eclectic in there

religious beliefs.  That the

kind of comments you make about

Jews, whether or not Jung made

them (he was not perfect) is

disgusting

And there we are.

Jung was making an observation about the

group psychology or different peoples (in

this case, different religions) - he was not

making a slur. There are differences in

group psychology, you know (Jung describes

American culture as extremely extraverted -

is that a slur?). Further, he made the very

same observation about Protestants, *of

which he was one*. Why, I wonder, are you so

upset that Jung makes a remark about Jewish

psychology, but do not get upset that he

makes the same remark about Protestants. To

repeat, Jung's point was about the

psychological richness of Catholicism as a

"psychic system."

and if you know anything

about the theories of how blacks

can dance have lower

intelligence etc. and don't have

the capacity to realize that

people who are bond in any form

to areas where they are only

amongst their own and can not

communicate or get education to

climb up the latter will develop

bizarre traits of the abuse they

are suffering just like any

child who is abused by their

father or mother or the powers

that be.  If you don't like

hearing that too bad.  Okay, is

that better than sarcasm.  You

got it straight now.  Or are you

going to tell me how the Jews

killed Christ, when Christ was a

Jew and a percentage of

Christians come from the Jewish

race and it was not Jewish

traditon to murder people on

crucifixes as far as I know.

How the heck did we get here? How did we get

from, "In my observation as a psychiatrist,

Jews and Protestants are usually more

neurotic than Catholics, and here's why" to

this? Again, you imply that Jung was an

anti- Semite with all this "Christ killing"

nonsense. Jung never said any of that. You

are attacking a straw man.

  How long would you like to

argue this.  Till Easter?  Yes,

I got sarcastic.  How about

putting me in the category of

sarcastic humanitarian. 

How about sarcastic moralist?

regards,

Dan Watkins

Maybe, I can start a new

trend.  Wouldn't that be nice. 

Then people could quote me.

[Guest guest]

Its more like how ridiculous are you to make any assumption that I know anything about what he said about Protestants. How crazy is that? What are you after? .....Eugenics darling is what I don't like....and taking things out of context and out dated material and expecting to believe everything someone says.......sounds like a dictatorship to me. Do you think Jung would have wanted that. I would bet he would have loved my fiestiness dearheart. He probably would have lauged. Then if you go back to how this started. This started with defending history so that one does not have to feel....much of what my experience here was quite surprising in that vein. Out of touch, stonified, rigid thinking with not a whole lot of a sense of humanity. I sent an ad. It said point

blank this has nothing to do with politics or who I would vote for. I thought anyone who got to the bottom with studying psych could have enough compassion and empathy to understand what was in that ad, but it is not what I found, was it? I found justifications for continuing history as is, words like elite and aristocrat and then thrown in the mix about the Jews and for what purpose? You want a question? Why all the strong reaction to an ad, which makes one think about what it is like to be oppressed? Why don't you ask yourself that question? So now you all know, I am not Christian nor am I Jewish (for that in real reality is not a nationality unless you want to consider a whole boatload of Christians as being Jewish or doing rituals changed their DNA). You want to know why else? I'm appalled by what is going on in this country in the name of religion and what has gone on in the name of Christianity

during the crusades and right on up to the perverted priest and nuns who molested people, tortured the indians and separated them from their parents. I'm appalled at justifying all that ritual which much of comes out of pagan and egyptian traditon and out of Africa it seems as well from what I read here and did a bit of research online, and it is an opiate for the masses. For me, this stuff is psychotic and in our present age has led to many leaders who are very vested in antisocial behavior. Is that is enough whys for you. Personally, I have now dropped this and don't wish to continue this conversation. It has become boring and repetitive. If you don't get what I think by now and only want to pick something to weaken my position, lots of love to you, but do you just want to hear yourself talk, because this has lost purpose. There is no purpose for me, when I started out from a position of compassion and

empathy for those oppressed or does that only go for 9/11. Any fool could tell that if we continued what we were continuing someone was going to have the balls to retaliate and it could have been so much worse.

[Guest guest]

Jung spoke in general terms of religion as a means by which the human psyche

reaches out, in projection, in order to bring order. Unfortunately as history

has proven over and over, religion usually brings chaos. But, from chaos comes

order. Within. Never without. One of the mysteries of life we cannot understand.

Only know. And trust. So much contradiction of terms. Particularly with Jung. A

man of his time. As someone pointed out in one comment to my posts, we are all

" of our time. " The purpose of individuation is to move beyond ourselves. Jung

did. That doesn't mean Jungians have. Concentrate on Jung as you may come to

know him. Not on how Jungians want you to know him. And remember his own

admonition about Jungians! He was glad he was Jung and not a Jungian!

It is all good. Within. If you allow it to be. We cannot change the world

without. Only the world within. It does not matter if no one else knows that

something is wrong. Only that you do. It does not matter if no one else speaks

out. Only that you do. But speak out, toss it to the cosmos, and move on. Easy

to say, hard to do.

Life is fair as someone told me over 30 years ago. Unfortunately it's filled

with schmucks. So you learn to ignore the schmucks.

>

> Subject: Re: Jung must be PC! (was : impressive ad about our

military)

> To: " JUNG-FIRE " <JUNG-FIRE >

> Date: Monday, January 16, 2012, 9:30 PM

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>  

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Its

> more like how ridiculous are you to make any assumption that

> I know anything about what he said about Protestants. How

> crazy is that?  What are you after?  .....Eugenics

> darling is what I don't like....and taking things out of

> context and out dated material and expecting to believe

> everything someone says.......sounds like a dictatorship to

> me.  Do you think Jung would have wanted that.  I

> would bet he would have loved my fiestiness dearheart. 

> He probably would have lauged.  Then if you go back to

> how this started.  This started with defending history

> so that one does not have to feel....much of what my

> experience here was quite surprising in that vein.  Out

> of touch, stonified, rigid thinking with not a whole lot of

> a sense of humanity.  I sent an ad.  It said point

> blank this has nothing to do with politics or who I would

> vote for.  I thought anyone who got to the bottom with

> studying psych could have enough compassion and empathy to

> understand what was in that ad, but it is not what I found,

> was it?  I found justifications for continuing history

> as is, words like elite and aristocrat and then thrown in

> the mix about the Jews and for what purpose?  You want

> a question?  Why all the strong reaction to an ad,

> which makes one think about what it is like to be

> oppressed?  Why don't you ask yourself that

> question?  So now you all know, I am not Christian nor

> am I Jewish (for that in real reality is not a nationality

> unless you want to consider a whole boatload of Christians

> as being Jewish or doing rituals changed their DNA). 

> You want to know why else?  I'm appalled by what is

> going on in this country in the name of religion and what

> has gone on in the name of Christianity 

> during the crusades and right on up to the perverted

> priest and nuns who molested people, tortured the indians

> and separated them from their parents.  I'm

> appalled at justifying all that ritual which much of comes

> out of pagan and egyptian traditon and out of Africa it

> seems as well from what I read here and did a bit of

> research online, and it is an opiate for the masses. 

> For me, this stuff is psychotic  and in our present age

> has led to many leaders who are very vested in antisocial

> behavior.  Is that is enough whys for you. 

> Personally, I have now dropped this and don't wish to

> continue this conversation.  It has become boring and

> repetitive.  If you don't get what I think by now

> and only want to pick something to weaken my position, lots

> of love to you, but do you just want to hear yourself talk,

> because this has lost purpose.  There is no purpose for

> me, when I started out from a position of compassion and

> empathy for those oppressed or does that only go for

> 9/11.  Any fool could tell that if we continued what we

> were continuing someone was going to have the balls to

> retaliate and it could have been so much worse.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I would say that you are correct, it starts within as everything does.That pretty much goes without saying.

Of course there is a responsibility to say,to verbalize, and I would add to take action about social injustice( which was the original topic), if possible.While verbally tossing it to the universe may be the extent of what one can do in an on-line group,and all that is called for, tossing thoughts to the universe does not feed the hungry or rescue the abused child or battered wife. Sometimes organized action is required on a personal and/or collective level.We can change our world within and we can also sometimes influence and organize others toward changing the world without( civil rights movement).Think of the people who stood by in Germany in WW ll while 5 million innocent people were slaughtered, I don't think merely tossing it to the universe was the answer. Helping people to escape, hide( immediate action) was necessary in order to be able to get out the truth/horror of the situation and to then tell the world what was happening.In other words, immediate action was required and it often is in socal injustice situations, either on a personal and/or collective level.In life,sometimes you can ignore the schmucks and sometimes you have to stand up to them, it depends on the situation.

Re: Jung must be PC! (was : impressive ad about our military)

> To: "JUNG-FIRE " <JUNG-FIRE >

> Date: Monday, January 16, 2012, 9:30 PM

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Its

> more like how ridiculous are you to make any assumption that

> I know anything about what he said about Protestants. How

> crazy is that? What are you after? .....Eugenics

> darling is what I don't like....and taking things out of

> context and out dated material and expecting to believe

> everything someone says.......sounds like a dictatorship to

> me. Do you think Jung would have wanted that. I

> would bet he would have loved my fiestiness dearheart.

> He probably would have lauged. Then if you go back to

> how this started. This started with defending history

> so that one does not have to feel....much of what my

> experience here was quite surprising in that vein. Out

> of touch, stonified, rigid thinking with not a whole lot of

> a sense of humanity. I sent an ad. It said point

> blank this has nothing to do with politics or who I would

> vote for. I thought anyone who got to the bottom with

> studying psych could have enough compassion and empathy to

> understand what was in that ad, but it is not what I found,

> was it? I found justifications for continuing history

> as is, words like elite and aristocrat and then thrown in

> the mix about the Jews and for what purpose? You want

> a question? Why all the strong reaction to an ad,

> which makes one think about what it is like to be

> oppressed? Why don't you ask yourself that

> question? So now you all know, I am not Christian nor

> am I Jewish (for that in real reality is not a nationality

> unless you want to consider a whole boatload of Christians

> as being Jewish or doing rituals changed their DNA).

> You want to know why else? I'm appalled by what is

> going on in this country in the name of religion and what

> has gone on in the name of Christianity

> during the crusades and right on up to the perverted

> priest and nuns who molested people, tortured the indians

> and separated them from their parents. I'm

> appalled at justifying all that ritual which much of comes

> out of pagan and egyptian traditon and out of Africa it

> seems as well from what I read here and did a bit of

> research online, and it is an opiate for the masses.

> For me, this stuff is psychotic and in our present age

> has led to many leaders who are very vested in antisocial

> behavior. Is that is enough whys for you.

> Personally, I have now dropped this and don't wish to

> continue this conversation. It has become boring and

> repetitive. If you don't get what I think by now

> and only want to pick something to weaken my position, lots

> of love to you, but do you just want to hear yourself talk,

> because this has lost purpose. There is no purpose for

> me, when I started out from a position of compassion and

> empathy for those oppressed or does that only go for

> 9/11. Any fool could tell that if we continued what we

> were continuing someone was going to have the balls to

> retaliate and it could have been so much worse.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Its more like how ridiculous are you to make any

assumption that I know anything about what he said about

Protestants.

? It was in the original quotation that I posted, the one that you

got upset about.

How crazy is that? What are you after?

......Eugenics darling is what I don't like....and taking

things out of context and out dated material and

expecting to believe everything someone

says.......sounds like a dictatorship to me. Do you

think Jung would have wanted that. I would bet he would

have loved my fiestiness dearheart. He probably would

have lauged. Then if you go back to how this started.

This started with defending history so that one does not

have to feel....much of what my experience here was

quite surprising in that vein. Out of touch, stonified,

rigid thinking with not a whole lot of a sense of

humanity. I sent an ad. It said point blank this has

nothing to do with politics or who I would vote for.

You can't send an ad. about war that is not about politics. War is

one of the big political things. War is always about politics. It

would be too much to say that war *is* politics, but not too much

too much, if you see what I mean. For that matter, I don't think you

can send an ad. by a political candidate and claim that it is not

about politics.

I thought anyone who got to the bottom with studying

psych could have enough compassion and empathy to

understand what was in that ad, but it is not what I

found, was it? I found justifications for continuing

history as is, words like elite and aristocrat and then

thrown in the mix about the Jews and for what purpose?

It's not a question of history, but of nature - specifically, human

nature. It's not up to us to change "history." To paraphrase some

other posters here, we would have quite enough to do to change

ourselves.

You want a question? Why all the strong reaction

to an ad, which makes one think about what it is like to

be oppressed?

For myself, I don't recall having expressed a "strong reaction" - I

did express an opinion. And who is it in particular that you have in

mind when you talk about the oppressed, anyhow?

Why don't you ask yourself that question? So now

you all know, I am not Christian nor am I Jewish (for

that in real reality is not a nationality unless you

want to consider a whole boatload of Christians as being

Jewish or doing rituals changed their DNA). You want to

know why else? I'm appalled by what is going on in this

country in the name of religion and what has gone on in

the name of Christianity during the crusades and right

on up to the perverted priest and nuns who molested

people, tortured the indians and separated them from

their parents. I'm appalled at justifying all that

ritual which much of comes out of pagan and egyptian

traditon and out of Africa it seems as well from what I

read here and did a bit of research online, and it is an

opiate for the masses.

"Opiate for the masses," as I'm sure you know, comes straight out of

Marxism, and as such, nothing could be further from Jung's own view

of politics, of how to manage the collective, or of the necessity

(and inevitability) of religion. Called or uncalled, the gods are

with us. It is not too much to say that this view is the polar

opposite of Jung's - of course you are free to take that view, but,

I don't know, why stick with Jung when you seem to reject his whole

world-view?

For me, this stuff is psychotic and in our present

age has led to many leaders who are very vested in

antisocial behavior. Is that is enough whys for you.

Personally, I have now dropped this and don't wish to

continue this conversation. It has become boring and

repetitive. If you don't get what I think by now and

only want to pick something to weaken my position, lots

of love to you, but do you just want to hear yourself

talk, because this has lost purpose. There is no

purpose for me, when I started out from a position of

compassion and empathy for those oppressed or does that

only go for 9/11. Any fool could tell that if we

continued what we were continuing someone was going to

have the balls to retaliate

Sounds as though you approve.

I agree that there is not point in continuing this further.

Dan Watkins

and it could have been so much worse.