Reply to Jordan Peterson on the Jewish Question — From His Heroes: Part Three: Jung

C. G. Jung

Go to Part 1: Solzhenitsyn.
Go to Part 2: Dostoevsky

A Reply to Jung.

Jordan Peterson references Carl Jung in almost every interview, talk, or text he delivers, and these references are especially frequent in his lecture series on the Biblical stories. In 12 Rules for Life (p.131), Peterson describes Jung as both a “great psychiatrist” and a “psychoanalyst extraordinaire.” Jung’s ideas about the subconscious and archetypes form the backbone of much of Peterson’s self-concept and public work. One therefore wonders what Jung would have made of Jordan Peterson’s “On the So-Called Jewish Question.”

To begin with, Jung would almost certainly object to Peterson’s implicit assumption that Jews are easily integrated parts in the machinery of Western civilization, equal or even superior in suitability to all others. Jung believed that Jews, like all peoples, have a characteristic personality, and he would have stressed the need to take this personality into account. Even in his own sphere of expertise, Jung warned that “Freud and Adler’s psychologies were specifically Jewish, and therefore not legitimate for Aryans.”[1] A formative factor in the Jewish personality was the rootlessness of the Jews and the persistence of the Diaspora. Jung argued that Jews lacked a “chthontic quality,” meaning “The Jew … is badly at a loss for that quality in man which roots him to the earth and draws new strength from below.”[2] Jung penned these words in 1918, but they retain significance even after the founding of the State of Israel. Even today, vastly more Jews live outside Israel than within it. Jews remain a Diaspora people, and many continue to see their Diaspora status as a strength. Because they are scattered and rootless, however, Jung argued that Jews developed methods of getting on in the world that are built on exploiting weakness in others rather than expressing explicit strength. In Jung’s phrasing, “The Jews have this particularity in common with women; being physically weaker, they have to aim at the chinks in the armour of their adversary.”[3]

Jung would probably have been doubtful regarding Peterson’s claims that Jews obtain positions of influence solely on their intellectual merits and because they score high on Openness to Experience. Jung believed that Jews were incapable of operating effectively without a host society, and that they relied heavily upon grafting themselves into the systems of other peoples in order to succeed. In a 1934  essay titled ‘The state of psychotherapy today,’ Jung wrote: “The Jew, who is something of a nomad, has never yet created a cultural form of his own, and as far as we can see, never will, since all his instincts and talents require a more or less civilized nation to act as host for their development.” This process of group development often involved ‘aiming at the chinks in the armour of their adversary,’ along with other flexible strategies.[4]

Jung also believed (in common with a finding in Kevin MacDonald’s work) that there was a certain psychological aggressiveness in Jews, which was partly a result of the internal mechanics of Judaism. In a remarkably prescient set of observations in the 1950s, Jung expressed distaste for the behavior of Jewish women and essentially predicted the rise of feminism as a symptom of the pathological Jewess. Jung believed that Jewish men were “brides of Yahweh,” rendering Jewish women more or less obsolete within Judaism. In reaction, argued Jung, Jewish women in the early twentieth century began aggressively venting their frustrations against the male-centric nature of Judaism (and against the host society as a whole) while still conforming to the characteristic Jewish psychology and its related strategies. Writing to Martha Bernays, Freud’s wife, he once remarked of Jewish women that “so many of them are loud, aren’t they?” and later added he had treated “very many Jewish women — in all these women there is a loss of individuality, either too much or too little. But the compensation is always for the lack. That is to say, not the right attitude.”[5]

It is likely that Jung would also have taken issue with the spirit of Peterson’s brief essay; namely, that it takes the form of a smug defense of Jews against alleged anti-Semitism. Peterson clearly locates Kevin MacDonald’s analysis of Jewish group behavior through history in the realm of “reactionary conspiracy theories.” Jung, meanwhile, was cautious about accusations of anti-Semitism, and he was “critical of the oversensitivity of Jews to anti-Semitism,” believing “one cannot criticise an individual Jew without it immediately becoming an anti-Semitic attack.”[6] It is certainly difficult to believe that Jung, who basically argued that Jews had a unique psychological profile and had developed a unique method for getting on in the world, would have disagreed with the almost identical foundational premise of Kevin MacDonald’s trilogy. In fact, Jung believed that playing the victim and utilizing accusations of anti-Semitism as a sword against their critics were simply parts of the Jewish strategy—a useful cover for concerted ethnocentric action in “aiming at the chinks in the armour of their adversary.” For example, after the war, in a 1945 letter to Mary Mellon, he wrote, “It is however difficult to mention the anti-Christianism of the Jews after the horrible things that have happened in Germany. But Jews are not so damned innocent after all—the role played by the intellectual Jews in pre-war Germany would be an interesting object of investigation”[7] Indeed, MacDonald notes:

a prominent feature of anti-Semitism among the Social Conservatives and racial anti-Semites in Germany from 1870 to 1933 was their belief that Jews were instrumental in developing ideas that subverted traditional German attitudes and beliefs. Jews were vastly overrepresented as editors and writers during the 1920s in Germany, and “a more general cause of increased anti-Semitism was the very strong and unfortunate propensity of dissident Jews to attack national institutions and customs in both socialist and non-socialist publications” (Gordon 1984, 51).[i] This “media violence” directed at German culture by Jewish writers such as Kurt Tucholsky—who “wore his subversive heart on his sleeve” (Pulzer 1979, 97)—was publicized widely by the anti-Semitic press (Johnson 1988, 476–477).

Jews were not simply overrepresented among radical journalists, intellectuals, and “producers of culture” in Weimar Germany, they essentially created these movements. “They violently attacked everything about German society. They despised the military, the judiciary, and the middle class in general” (Rothman & Lichter 1982, 85). Massing (1949, 84) notes the perception of the anti-Semite Adolf Stoecker of Jewish “lack of reverence for the Christian-conservative world.” (The Culture of Critique, Ch. 1)

These sentiments largely echoed comments Jung made in November 1933 to Esther Harding, in which he expressed the opinion that Jews had clustered in Weimar Germany because they tend to “fish in troubled waters,” by which he meant that Jews tend to congregate where social decay is ongoing. He remarked that he had personally observed German Jews drinking champagne in Montreaux (Switzerland) while “Germany was starving,” and that while “very few had been expelled” and “Jewish shops in Berlin went on the same,” if there was a rising hardship among them in Germany it was because “overall the Jews deserved it.”[8] Perhaps most interesting of all in any discussion of Jewish acquisition of influence, it appears that in 1944 Jung oversaw the implementation of quotas on Jewish admission to the Analytical Psychology Club of Zurich. The quotas (a generous 10% of full members and 25% for guest members) were inserted into a secret appendix to the by-laws of the club and remained in place until 1950.[9] One can only assume that, like other quotas introduced around the world at various times, the goal here was to limit, or at least retain some measure of control over, Jewish numerical and directional influence within that body.

Although he was, like Peterson, a proponent of psychological individuation and the cultivation of the individual subconscious, Jung would be unlikely to agree with Jordan Peterson’s dismissal of “identity politics.” Jung in fact believed that mass national movements under strong leaders could pave the way for energetic rebirth and renewal. In a radio broadcast from Berlin in 1933 he remarked:

Times of mass movement are always times of leadership. Every movement culminates organically in a leader, who embodies in his whole being the meaning and purpose of the popular movement. He is an incarnation of the nation’s psyche and its mouthpiece. He is the spearhead of the phalanx of the whole people in motion.[10]

In fact, Jung believed that “identity politics” was a positive that should be pursed to exclusionary lengths, and that multiculturalism would have potentially disastrous effects on Whites. For example, having spent some time examining the state of mental health in the United States, Jung attributed the “American complex” to the fact Whites were “living together with ‘lower races, especially with Negroes’.”[11] Jung undertook two trips to Africa with the express purpose of studying what he viewed as the most “primitive” human psychologies.[12] He afterwards asserted that “there is a danger in the mixture of races,” that the mulatto is “apt to be a bad character,” and that “miscegenation is the cause of many cases of insanity.”[13]  Many Whites living among Blacks are confronted with a “source of temperamental and mimetic infection,” by which he means that the former will too readily begin to adopt the negative behaviors of the latter—a type of cultural contagion.

Conversely, for the astute, interacting with Africans and thoughtfully observing the deep differences between the races could provide a positive reinforcement of identity. Jung himself remarked that, while travelling through Africa, “I could not help feeling superior, as I was reminded at every step of my European nature.”[14]

This is a striking comment because it expresses the fact that the sense of racial difference is something that impresses itself on the subject from an external experience. This contrasts radically with post-modern and psychoanalytic theories of racial thought and “race prejudice,” which root the sense of racial difference in the inner world of the subject. This latter way of thinking is most radically the case in Jean-Paul Sartre’s Anti-Semite and Jew, where the French philosopher argues that the anti-Semite is not someone struck by the observation and experience of Jewish behavior, but rather someone whose inner anxieties and inadequacies drive the search for an external cause onto which to project the inner flaws. This is both pseudo-science and pseudo-psychology.

Examining Jordan Peterson’s assessment of the Jewish Question, we can only conclude once more that Peterson’s ideas share more in common with the post-modernist thought he claims to struggle against, than with the traditional Western intellectual tradition he claims to defend. Just to reiterate, this is Peterson’s account of the origins of anti-Semitism in the individual:

You can claim responsibility for the accomplishments of your group you feel racially/ethnically akin to without actually having to accomplish anything yourself. That’s convenient. You can identify with the hypothetical victimization of that group and feel sorry for yourself and pleased at your compassion simultaneously. Another unearned victory. You simplify your world radically, as well. All the problems you face now have a cause, and a single one, so you can dispense with the unpleasant difficulty of thinking things through in detail. Bonus. Furthermore, and most reprehensibly: you now have someone to hate (and, what’s worse, with a good conscience) so your unrecognized resentment and cowardly and incompetent failure to deal with the world forthrightly can find a target, and you can feel morally superior in your consequent persecution.

This could have been lifted directly from Sartre, Horkheimer, or Adorno. It’s pure Jewish psychoanalysis, mobilized for political ends. And it is the kind of thought that provides legitimacy and ideological firepower to the marginalization of White interests and the continuation of White cultural collapse.

Jung, of course, remained for a long time disturbed about the potential for such a cultural collapse among Whites, and he was particularly anxious about the experience of Whites forced to co-habit with large African populations. He warned: “the European, however highly developed, cannot live in impunity among the Negroes. … Their psychology gets into him unnoticed and unconsciously he becomes a Negro. There is no fighting against it.”[15] “Identity politics,” with ethno-racial foundations was, to Jung, a matter of racial and civilizational survival.

We turn finally to Friedrich Nietzsche.

Go to Part 4 of 4.


[1] B. Cohen, “Jung’s Answer to Jews,” Jung Journal: Culture and Psyche, 6:1 (56-71), 59.

[2] Ibid, 58.

[3] Ibid.

[4] T. Kirsch, “Jung’s Relationship with Jews and Judaism,” in Analysis and Activism: Social and Political Contributions of Jungian Psychology (London: Routledge, ), 174.

[5] Ibid, 177.

[6] T. Kirsch, “Jung and Judaism,” Jung Journal: Culture and Psyche, 6:1 (6-7), 6.

[7] S. Zemmelman (2017). “Inching towards wholeness: C.G. Jung and his relationship to Judaism.” Journal of Analytical Psychology, 62(2), 247–262.

[8] See W. Schoenl and L. Schoenl, Jung’s Evolving View of Nazi Germany: From the Nazi Takeover to the End of World War II (Asheville: Chiron, 2016).

[9] S. Frosh (2005). “Jung and the Nazis: Some Implications for Psychoanalysis.” Psychoanalysis and History, 7(2), (253–271), 258.

[10] S. Frosh. (2005). “Jung and the Nazis: Some Implications for Psychoanalysis.” Psychoanalysis and History, 7(2), (253–271), 257.

[11] N. R. Goldenberg, “Reply to Barbara Chesser’s Comment on “A Feminist Critique of Jung” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 3: 3 (1978), 724.

[12] Adams, M. V. (1997). “Jung and Racism.” Self & Society, 25(1), 19–23.

[13] Ibid.

[14] J. Collins. (2009). “SHADOW SELVES.” Interventions, 11(1), 69–80.

[15] Ibid.

[i]. As anti-Semitism increased during the Weimar period, Jewish-owned liberal newspapers began to suffer economic hardship because of public hostility to the ethnic composition of the editorial boards and staffs (Mosse 1987, 371). The response of Hans Lachman-Mosse was to “depoliticize” his newspapers by firing large numbers of Jewish editors and correspondents. Eksteins (1975, 229) suggests that the response was an attempt to deflect right-wing categorizations of his newspapers as part of the Judenpresse.

24 replies
  1. Geowhizz
    Geowhizz says:

    J.Peterson’s MO, his need to publish books and keep his position at U of Toronto, likely is considered in his reluctance to more objectively asses the “Jewish Question.”

    • W.D.G.
      W.D.G. says:

      “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”

      – Upton Sinclair

      • royAlbrecht
        royAlbrecht says:

        Quite correct!
        Injust Trudon’t, current Jewminion of Kafkada’s PM, is tanking in the approval ratings polls across Canada.

        It seems that the US leadership (I.e. the Trump Train),
        as is usual in Canada,
        is dictating the direction of politics.

        Presently, Trudon’t’s closest conservative rival is Andrew Scheer, a Saskatchewan born and Ottawa schooled Catholic with a background in the insurance industry.

        At first glance Sheer does not look like a Steven Harper type of (((Chabad Lubavitcher lubricator))) and may just become a wanna-be Trump if given the moral and political support from the Trump administration to behave as such.

        Prospective Canadian politicians need to walk on PC egg shells to please the ever hungry Jewish lobby and if Sheer ends up becoming a “Trump Minni-me”, it spells big trouble for the (((Race of Criminal Psychopaths))) that depends on the works of others for its own survival.

        Canada, in comparison to the USA,
        is a minefield of political correctness not unlike the DMZ between North and South Korea.
        If you believe that Trump has, with relatively few words, largely laid waste to the comparatively low level of Political Correctness in the USA, then imagine what a Trump like figure will do to Canadian politics!

        The high level of mentally contorting PC in Canada makes the USA look like a kindergarten in comparison.

        Just a few words of common sense
        tossed into the vocabulary of an almost all pervasive Jew engineered Canadian Society
        and a century of Jew induced psychosis would be wiped out in a matter of months!

        Canada is arguably the worlds leader in Jew induced mass psychosis,
        making even the UK pale by comparison.

        If Trudon’t is going to be ejected from office, the Jews may want a more (((malleable))) Conservative in office than Sheer and Jordan Peterson may fit that bill.

        Wild speculation I know, but in the Jewminion of Cattledom/kafkada, EVERY party in the (((multiparty democracy))) is controlled by Jews so anything is possible.

  2. Franklin Ryckaert
    Franklin Ryckaert says:

    “…In a remarkably prescient set of observations in the 1950s, Jung expressed distaste for the behavior of Jewish women and essentially predicted the rise of feminism as a symptom of the pathological Jewess. …”

    Jung’s “distaste for the behavior of Jewish women” did not prevent him from having an intimate relationship with his former patient and later assistant the Jewess Sabina Spielrein, who was having fantasies of getting a child from him. See : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabina_Spielrein , Relationship with Carl Jung.

    • Framp
      Framp says:

      At pictures available online she looks acceptable. Add to this Jung’s contribution to making her a worthwile person plus her courting of him and you have justification for romance.
      It was said of Napoleonic soldiers that each carried the marshall batton in his knapsack, meaning open opportunity for promotion. Likewise, a Jew can become a human beeing if he/she works hard enough.

  3. ArayanZ
    ArayanZ says:

    I’m afraid 😨 it’s far too late at this point. There’s a “whigger” on every corner and they’re quite proud of “who” they are.
    Sad.

  4. Blue Corgi
    Blue Corgi says:

    Peterson’s chosen career is a jewish-created, jewish-dominated one. I noticed on wikipedia that Jordan’s mother’s name is “Beverley” — just Beverley. What are they trying to cover up about his ancestry?

  5. Tony Murphy
    Tony Murphy says:

    I believe that JP understands the JQ all too well. It’s simply not possible to undertake the depth of reserch that he has without the truth emerging. I believe that he’s doing what most media and academic ‘personalities’ do: Placate ‘the power’. In a sense I don’t blame him. His career is finished if he does. Cf. KMcD. I take consolation, just a little, in the fact that he’s at least questioning some of the (((Approved Narrative))). For some people this will lead to further research on the JQ.

    • Trenchant
      Trenchant says:

      Fence-sitting is out when Jews are the topic of discussion. I expect Peterson will be under pressure to rebut Joyce’s criticism. The Tar Baby dynamic.

      • RoyAlbrecht
        RoyAlbrecht says:

        Do not count on that happening.

        Jews are having trouble on almost all fronts containing and directing the logarithmic growth rate of global JQ awareness.

        According to the Jewish philosophy of usury (Talmud), the last thing Jews need is a battle they simply cannot win between the world’s leading non-Jewish expert on Jewish in-group behaviour (Dr. Prof. K. MacDonald) and a second rate, babbling [half Jewish?], psychopathic sycophant (J.P.).

        Jews can however be counted on to increase the sacrifice of little old Jewish women who get murdered in synagogues by Crypto-Jew, White Nationalist murderers and thereby distract the populaces’ eyes from such a confrontational debate in an attempt to refocus it on the need to lock up home grown terrorists.

  6. Baltika
    Baltika says:

    Wrongheaded, and an unfortunately waste of Joyce’s energy. This reads like a liberal attack on Peterson one would find in the New York Times. “Peterson’s heroes are fascist nazi jewhaters! wowjustwow” etc. I can barely detect a difference from Panjak Misra’s line of attack in the NY Review of Books a few months ago.

    Peterson is obviously well aware that the figures he admires like Jung, Dostoevsky and Solzenitzin were critical of jews. But he’s decided to take those parts out. He clearly believes the jew-critical parts are non-essential to the core philosophies. The question is, it is philosophically valid to do that, or not? This series by Joyce is failing to address Peterson’s JQ comments on that level, but this is what is actually needed. Pointing out that Jung was an antisemite is just repeating the exact same thing every left wing academic is already trained to point out.

    • Rob Bottom
      Rob Bottom says:

      Baltika, is it not hypocritical for Peterson to regularly espouse the greatness of these thinkers while simultaneously ignoring what they expressed about the Jews, and then attack anyone who suggests their observations were correct? What makes these particular passages worthy of scorn, while the rest inspire devotion? Why would so many great thinkers from around the world, throughout history, notice smoke where there was no fire?

      Isn’t it “wrongheaded” that Peterson admits the Jews (a coherent racial and religious minority) are over represented in their host populations’ halls of power, while denying they wield that power to maintain group interests at odds with said population? If his house becomes infested with termites, does he not call an exterminator? Does he say the cracking wood beneath his feet and over his head is the voice of termite hate?

      • Baltika
        Baltika says:

        “If his house becomes infested with termites, does he not call an exterminator?”

        Check the news today. You’re going to get this whole site shut down with comments like that.

        At any rate, my point was simply that the way Joyce conflates Jungianism with antisemitism is identical to how the NYRB does it:
        https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2018/03/19/jordan-peterson-and-fascist-mysticism/

        Peterson’s premise is that antisemitism is non-essential to Jung. He sees the masculine/feminine order/chaos stuff to be the real core of Jung, and thinks the aryan stuff can be jettisoned. Joyce could try to argue that actually it’s a distortion of Jung to remove the racial parts, but Joyce doesn’t argue that here, instead he just presents a laundry list of antisemitic comments Jung made during the decade when making antisemitic comments peaked in fashionability. So what.

    • Trenchant
      Trenchant says:

      @ Baltika:
      Peterson *could* have drawn attention to his heroes’ supposed anti-Semitism and offered qualified praise. That would have differentiated him from the m.o. of the (((academic))) who would rather delegitimize both the man and his work. The oubliette, without parole.

  7. sol kashberg
    sol kashberg says:

    Is it possible that, far from being the greedy, cucked race-traitor he is popularly seen as, Peterson is actually ‘playing the long game’, working inside the authorized parameters of our strangled culture to dog-whistle a generation into becoming ‘woke’? Peterson may yet turn out to have been the most effective defender of the West, because he is wise enough to recognize the futility of a ‘head-on’ clash, and instead has patiently whispered into the ears of the young…”Go read these Russians…Go read this, and this, and this…”

    • Framp
      Framp says:

      I fully agee.
      Often innocuous inspiration suffices. Very strong language is not necessary. Once interest is aroused, reader will find stronger message elsewhere.

    • Trenchant
      Trenchant says:

      It’s hard to imagine how Peterson could possibly be defending Western Civilization, with its premium on truth, through expediency or mendacity. That’s wrongheaded. Peterson’s approach is full-on. Here’s an oblique, damn-with-faint-praise one by Nassim Taleb (H/T: Rever Leo)
      https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dictatorship-of-the-small-minority-3f1f83ce4e15

      In any case, Peterson’s call to eschew identity politics isn’t explicitly extended to Jews or other minorities which patently do embrace it, so one assumes he’s addressing whites who might be similarly tempted.

  8. Richard B
    Richard B says:

    “You can claim responsibility for the accomplishments of your group you feel racially/ethnically akin to without actually having to accomplish anything yourself…..”

    In this entire quote JBP does exactly what he’s talking about. A perfect example of projection. Though, admittedly, a lot more hard-headed than most.

    It’s 2018. There’s no way JBP can’t know that Science is the Model of Knowing. There’s no way he can’t know something about scientific procedure and how important it is in developing an explanation about anything, ie; its centrality in Explanation; about how different and definite observable concrete phenomena behave in relation to each other. He certainly shows some awareness of this in other aspects of his teaching, if that’s what you want to call it (kind of hard to get past all of that bony finger twidling. It’s so distracting).

    And yet when it comes to the JQ his ivory tower turns to jello and his entire argument collapses into a single variable (Criticism of Jews = Antisemitism) that automatically mushrooms into an absurd absolute (Only Losers Criticize Jews).
    This isn’t just pre-scientific, it’s anti-scientific. Either way, it totally destroys his credibility. Should a man with no intellectual credibility, or moral courage, be dolloping out recipes on how to live?

    Leaving that question aside, something really weird and creepy* follow from this. Since it’s obvious that for him Jews deserve to be placed above criticism he unintentionally (or intentionally, it’s hard to tell) turns Jews into a functional equivalent of The Second Coming. But there’s more.

    He doesn’t hesitate to explain something concrete by reference to a high level abstraction, a single variable functioning as some magical motive force (“antisemitism”) even though this motive force is a reduplication of the very thing to be explained.

    Q: Why are they antisemites?
    JBP: Because they’re losers.
    Q: Why are they losers?
    JBP: Because they’re antisemites.

    Conclusion: JBP is a fraud. And the worst kind, a pious fraud. History will not be kind to him.

    Oh, and by the way, it’s worth pointing out that using sweeping, glittering generalizations, instead of pointing out specific conditions of particular cases, or using analytical observations for the interpretation of relevant facts, is exactly what Marxists do.
    Just how deep does the deceit go with this guy? We already know he’s not a serious intellectual. But does he really believe in individual freedom? And is he really a Christian?

    *These are the two words I most often associate with him. I think he’s singularly unmanly, even girly, which is why he can’t shut up about what it means to be a real man. As if he would know.

    • TJ
      TJ says:

      This reminds me of Pinker writing in The Blank Slate, discussing differences between White and black intelligence- “In my opinion it’s not genetic.”

      Opinion? In a scientific book? Opinion has no place in science. What Pinker wrote was so lame, so absurd that the reader would know that he simply was unable to write truth if he wanted the book to be published.

      Perhaps JP is playing the same game- believing that he has no choice- telling truth could/would end his career.

      • Barkingmad
        Barkingmad says:

        “Perhaps JP is playing the same game- believing that he has no choice- telling truth could/would end his career.”

        Then, if JP was the moral person he pretends to be, he would quit his job. Surely, he must have enough saved up by now, not to mention a fine pension. It’s not like he’s 25 years old and just starting out.

Comments are closed.