Carl Jung and the Jews

“The Jew truly solicits anti-Semitism with his readiness to scent out anti-Semitism everywhere.”
        Carl Jung, 1934

For a long time I’ve been fascinated by the way in which Jews obsess over deceased, historical figures who made unflattering comments about their race. The more famous and talented, the greater the intensity of the obsession. Such preoccupations have featured previously at The Occidental Observer, for example in the Jewish vendetta against T.S. Eliot, and against his contemporary Ezra Pound. In Anthony Julius’s T.S. Eliot, anti-Semitism and Literary Form, for example, Julius writes that Jews reading Eliot’s poetry are both “appalled and impressed.”[1] They are appalled because they perceive an unjustified critique upon their ethnic group, and they perceive this critique more acutely because of their ethnocentrism. They are impressed, on the other hand, because they appreciate, and are threatened by, the talent of their target, often despite themselves. The ‘attraction’ which brings them back repeatedly to their target arises from the desire to deconstruct and demean that talent, and therefore avenge or mitigate the critique.

Jews are also firmly in the grip of a historically rooted fear or paranoia. The past is ever present for Jews, prompting them into risky and extremely aggressive actions against host populations. The perfect expression of this paranoia can be found in a very recent article in The Guardian by Jewish journalist Barney Ronay. Ronay is currently in Germany to cover the European Football championships, but he can’t seem to focus on sport. He informs his readers that he has “loved being in this warm, friendly place for Euro 2024, a homecoming of sorts. But that doesn’t stop it terrifying me.” He continues:

Here, by way of example, is a non-exhaustive list of German things that have felt terrifying to me, begun on my first day at the Euros when a happy German woman was laughing uncontrollably on a train passing through woodland outside Munich and I realised that happy uncontrollable German laughter is terrifying. German trains are terrifying. German railway sidings are terrifying. There are transport vibes here, fleeing energy. A German forest is terrifying, in particular a German forest clearing. An empty German park at dusk is terrifying. Any German village square is terrifying … What else? German dark wood furniture. A row of parked German bicycles (Where are they going? Will I need one?). German staircases, corridors, suitcases. Most German shoes. All discarded German shoes.

Many of these fears have their origins in tales passed down to Jewish children, and reinforced through Jewish cultural and political groups. Fear is a key ingredient in the cement that binds Jewish ethnocentrism, which is why the ADL invests a lot of money in surveys of anti-Semitism intended to terrify and shepherd the ethnic flock into cohesive action. In Ronay’s case, “Family myth dictates one of my distant uncles was pulled off a train and shot. The bullet passed through his neck, he lay down for a bit, got up and rejoined the resistance.” I applaud his use of the word myth here, but there are many hundreds of thousands of Jewish families which cherish such fantastical boogeyman tales as historical fact. And Jewish fear, and Jewish ethnocentrism, needs its boogeymen, be they obvious ones like Hitler, or more persistent cultural figures such as Eliot or Pound—figures who can still be discussed publicly with a level of respect and admiration. Among such figures we find Carl Jung.

Carl Jung and the Culture of Critique

Although, or perhaps because, Jung was once associated with psychoanalysis, a movement so Jewish that it comprises one of the Jewish intellectual movements highlighted in Kevin MacDonald’s Culture of Critique, the Swiss psychiatrist has increasingly become the focus of condemnation, deconstruction, and criticism in recent years. In the recently-published Anti-Semitism and Analytical Psychology: Jung, Politics and Culture, Jewish academic Daniel Burston writes that:

In today’s world of psychotherapy, one cannot be a Jungian without having to answer the charge that Jung was both a Nazi and anti-Semitic. … His statements on the over-materialistic values of Jewish psychology, and its corrosive effects on the spiritual nature of the psyche, were made in the 1930s. … Psychoanalysts have used it as a reason not to study Jung; other intellectuals use it as a reason to discredit Jung.[2]

In a paragraph that reads a little like something from a horror novel, Jung’s place as a boogeyman is introduced early, with anti-Semitism explained as a mysterious, ghostly and terrifying phenomenon:

After reading this book, perhaps Jungians will grasp why so many Jews think of anti-Semitism as a shape-shifting but deathless adversary that lives forever in the hidden recesses of Christian and Muslim cultures; one that lies dormant for shorter or longer periods, but always returns to torment us through the ages.

Shape-shifting and deathless. Oh my.

Burston draws a distinction between what he calls “low-brow, high-intensity” anti-Semites, and “high-brow, low-intensity” anti-Semites. He explicitly mentions Kevin MacDonald as an example of the latter, and places Jung in this category also. Burston claims that “anti-Semitic intellectuals” like MacDonald and Jung, while non-violent, “will also offer cover or support for less educated, more overt kind of anti-Semites when circumstances require.” The smear is therefore that men like MacDonald and Jung are essentially thugs in suits.

Burston traces Jung’s thought to the neo-conservative movement dominant during his university years, with Jung painted as having imbibed a semi-barbaric quasi-Germanism. “It rejected naturalism and was drawn to symbolism and irrationalism. In politics it questioned democracy and rejected socialism, preferring a Nietzschean elitism. . . . Jung adopted [Eduard von Hartmann’s] critique of modernity [including his] concern about the ‘Judaization’ of modern society. . . . For Jung, Freud became the representative of such a rationalistic, ‘disenchanted’ view of the world.”[3]

By the 1920s and 1930s, supporters of Freud and of Jung increasingly saw each other as opponents in a battle for civilization as each defined it. Because of his anti-materialism and his criticism of many of Freud’s more perverse theories, Freudians, most of whom were Jewish, regarded Jung as an anti-Semite and latterly as “a herald of fascist and Nazi barbarism.” Burston continues in this vein, arguing for a “significant and disturbing link between the dynamics of antisemitism over the centuries and the psychology and politics of Carl Jung.”

A crucial problem that Jews, past and present, have with Jung is that he dared to turn the analytical gaze back on the Jews themselves. While the entirety of psychoanalysis seemed geared towards what Kevin MacDonald termed “a radical criticism of gentile society,” as well as the development of self-serving theories of anti-Semitism, Jung developed a cutting critique of Jews and of what he called “Jewish anti-Christianism,” with many of his observations arising from direct experience with the Jewish psychoanalytic milieu. In other words, Jung put Jewish quacks “on the couch.” In a letter to an associate dated May 1934, Jung explained:

The Jewish Christ-complex makes for a somewhat hystericized general attitude … which has become especially clear to me in the course of the present anti-Christian attacks upon myself. The mere fact that I speak of a difference between Jewish and Christian psychology suffices to allow anyone to voice the prejudice that I am an anti-Semite. … As you know, Freud previously accused me of anti-Semitism because I could not countenance his soulless materialism. The Jew truly solicits anti-Semitism with his readiness to scent out anti-Semitism everywhere. I cannot see why the Jew, like any so-called Christian, is incapable of assuming that he is being personally criticised when one has an opinion of him. Why must it always be assumed that one wants to condemn the Jewish people?

For this affront, Jung is both dangerous and unforgivable in Jewish eyes. Burston is far from unique in wanting to diminish Jung because of his views on Jews. In the late 1990s a similar effort was made by the British Jewish academic Andrew Samuels, who claimed that “in C.G. Jung, nationalism found its psychologist.” The fearful response of Samuels to Jung was to claim that it was Jung who was gripped by a fear of Jews. Samuels tried to put Jung “on the couch” and to psychologize his attitudes to Jews by explaining them as being rooted in feelings of being threatened:

My perception is that the ideas of nation and of national difference form a fulcrum between the Hitlerian phenomenon and Jung’s analytical psychology. For, as a psychologist of nations, Jung too would feel threatened by the Jews, this strange so-called nation without a land. Jung, too, would feel threatened by the Jews, this strange nation without cultural forms — that is, without national cultural forms — of its own, and hence, in Jung’s words of 1933, requiring a “host nation”. What threatens Jung, in particular, can be illuminated by enquiring closely into what he meant when he writes, as he often does, of “Jewish psychology.”

Even in the early 2000s, there seemed to be a divide between non-Jewish scholars keen to keep Jung in the public eye, and Jewish scholars keen to keep him in the gutter. In a letter to the New York Times in 2004, one “Henry Friedman” took issue with Robert Boynton (NYU) and Deirdre Bair (National Book Award winning biographer) for their apparent agreement that Jung was “neither personally anti-Semitic nor politically astute,” thus absolving Jung of some of the worst accusations levelled against him by Jewish critics keen to associate Jung with the ideas of National Socialism. Friedman called this “a further contribution to a misleading attempt to minimize the importance of Jung’s anti-Semitic racism and his contributions to the Third Reich’s genocidal policies.” Friedman continues:

It is pathetic that Jung should be excused from responsibility for his virulent racism and his importance in the Nazi movement. Most important, it is likely that his ideas about psychoanalysis were instrumental in Hitler and Göring’s desire to cleanse psychoanalysis of Freud’s ideas — especially the notion of the Oedipus complex, which apparently offended Hitler’s sensibilities. To conclude that Martin Heidegger was more of a collaborator than Jung serves to divert attention from the serious nature of Jung’s involvement with the Nazis’ anti-Semitic propaganda. Whether he was a worse offender than Heidegger is hard to assess, but as one who wrote papers on the inferiority of the Jewish race, Jung deserves a special degree of condemnation, not the lame excuse granted him by both Bair and Boynton.

Jung’s Attitudes Towards Jews

Jung’s professional and private writings contain a significant amount of material about Jews, and the content is most often highly critical. It is therefore not surprising that Jews should see Jung as a formidable opponent. Jung made many statements which appear to concur with Kevin MacDonald’s assessment that psychoanalysis under Freud was a Jewish intellectual movement. In 1934 Jung received much criticism for an article he published titled The State of Psychotherapy Today, in which he wrote that psychoanalysis was “a Jewish psychology.” Defending himself against accusations of racism for suggesting that Jews and Europeans have a different psychology, Jung explained:

Psychological differences obtain between all nations and races, and even between the inhabitants of Zurich, Basel, and Bern. (Where else would all the good jokes come from?) There are in fact differences between families and between individuals. That is why I attack every levelling psychology when it raises a claim to universal validity, as for instance the Freudian and the Adlerian. … All branches of mankind unite in one stem—yes, but what is a stem without separate branches? Why this ridiculous touchiness when anybody dares to say anything about the psychological difference between Jews and Christians? Every child knows that differences exist.

Jung believed that Jews, like all peoples, have a characteristic personality, and he stressed the need to take this personality into account. In his own sphere of expertise, Jung warned that “Freud and Adler’s psychologies were specifically Jewish, and therefore not legitimate for Aryans.”[4] For Jung, 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.”[5] Jung penned these words in 1918, but they retain significance even after the founding of the State of Israel, since 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.”[6]

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 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.[7]

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.”[8]

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.”[9] 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 MacDonald’s trilogy. In fact, Jung believed that playing the victim and utilizing accusations of anti-Semitism 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”[10] 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 echoed comments made in November 1933 to Esther Harding, in which Jung 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 and flourish 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.”[11] 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.[12] 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.

Jung was of course operating in a time period in which racial self-awareness was acute on all sides. Kevin MacDonald explains in The Culture of Critique that, within psychoanalysis, there was a clear understanding among Jews that Jung was an Aryan and not quite capable of being in full communion with its Jewish members and leaders. MacDonald writes:

Early in their relationship Freud also had suspicions about Jung, the result of “worries about Jung’s inherited Christian and even anti-Jewish biases, indeed his very ability as a non-Jew to fully understand and accept psychoanalysis itself.” Before their rupture, Freud described Jung as a “strong independent personality, as a Teuton.” After Jung was made head of the International Psychoanalytic Association, a colleague of Freud’s was concerned because “taken as a race,” Jung and his gentile colleagues were “completely different from us Viennese.” (The Culture of Critique, Ch.4)


To the extent that psychoanalysis continues to exist as a movement, or at least as a niche within academia and culture, it’s clear that Jung “the Teuton” continues to haunt Jews with his comments and criticisms, and the split that occurred in the lifetime of Jung and Freud persists in some fashion a century later — a testament to the fact, perhaps, that psychoanalysis was a tool for racial conflict from its inception. Were he alive today, I’m sure Jung would be amused but perhaps not surprised that he continues to feature in the psyche of Jews, as terrifying a boogeyman as uncontrollable German laughter.

[1] A. Julius, T.S. Eliot, anti-Semitism and Literary Form (Thames & Hudson, 2003), 40.

[2] D. Burston, Anti-Semitism and Analytical Psychology: Jung, Politics and Culture (Routledge: New York, 2021).

[3] G. Cocks (2023). [Review of the book Anti-Semitism and Analytical Psychology: Jung, Politics and Culture, by Daniel Burston]. Antisemitism Studies 7(1), 215-222.

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

[5] Ibid, 58.

[6] Ibid.

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

[8] Ibid, 177.

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

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

[11] 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).

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

32 replies
  1. Lady Strange
    Lady Strange says:

    Thank you for this article.
    Another exemple , to a lesser degree, is Walt Disney ( horrific antisemite who tried to ” fight against ” the Jewish Monopoly in Hollywood ) …
    You are maybe aware that after buying Disney and populated it with exclusively Jewish CEOs, they are actually busy to destroy and inverting completely it’s legacy ( with WOKE insanity, LGBT porn and negrophilia) …
    Of course this is revenge from these mentally ill pests.
    There is an exception : Ferdinand Céline. Jews are still in awe with him despite his vulgar and outrageous antisemitism. ( Personally, I don’t like Céline) But maybe, this is why …

  2. Tom Carberry
    Tom Carberry says:

    Thanks for the interesting article. Judaism follows YHWH ish Milhamah, or the Man of War, also known as Tsabaoth, or the lord of the armies. Today they fight their wars by proxies, allowing the children of other races to die for their profit and power. In a war based society, women have a diminished role because of their inability to fight effectively. Instead, armies use transvestite/transgender men.

  3. Crush Limbraw
    Crush Limbraw says:

    ‘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 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.[7]” – exquisitely defined.
    As I have said for years – termites need a host domicile to prosper – works really well when the occupants are unaware of their invasion.

    • WCH
      WCH says:

      I think the same is true for blacks and hispanics. Whites and Chinese are the top builders of societies. Most others races are scavengers and criminals.

      • Rossini
        Rossini says:

        If I may: the Chinese build nothing but slave labor, cheap goods and stolen technology. The Japanese are a noble race

        • Lady Strange
          Lady Strange says:

          Japanese are not so different from chinese. They steal, steal, steal. But they are more interesting thanks to their history of feudalism.

      • Lady Strange
        Lady Strange says:

        Please. Chinese stole everything from Westerners. It would be nice if everyone cease to parrot this nonsense invented by Jared Taylor and others to virtue signal as ” non racists ” .

        • Weaver
          Weaver says:

          Everything is made now in China. Advances in manufacturing will take place in China. As a result, China will get ahead and refuse to share new technology. That’s China’s plan anyway.

        • Sam J.
          Sam J. says:

          “…Chinese stole everything from Westerners…”

          This may be presently true but the Chinese have been stupendously inventive in the past. The Chinese were making vast quantities of iron well before Europeans, but the government stopped the iron makers because they got too much power. Chinese junk ships have and had a number of advanced features that western ships still don’t use. There’s a whole set of 34, or more, volumes by Joseph Needham on Science and Civilization in China. I say this not as a Chinese booster but because I think most people vastly, very vastly, undervalue the ability of China. In the past, their type of hydraulic civilization meant that all the bureaucracy used every means possible to keep things in stasis. This is no longer true. The whole country is full of people with a generally high IQ and doesn’t have near the varied population problems the west has.

    • Jackie Pratt
      Jackie Pratt says:

      Jews are the cancer of white civilization. Unfortunately it seems we are at stage 4.

      The jews won’t be able to do the same to black civilization because it will never reach a level that jews will want/need (plus jews cant blend in).

      The asians, upcoming inheritors (or champions winning?) of the mantle, ‘prime global civilization’, might do well to pay attention (although jews cant blend in there either, unless the leadership becomes more mongoloid.

      The jews latch onto the body of a healthy civilization (white in this case), like a cancerous growth create a grimy infected pool of filth, decay and dissolution and they thrive in the aromatic ooze that exudes and rises from that same grimy pool.

      • Barkingmad
        Barkingmad says:

        Every coin has two sides. Were they ruining a truly healthy culture, or was there a bit of underlying rot that they recognized, glommed onto and fed? I say that we were “fat ‘n’ happy” for too long and could not recognize our own inherent weaknesses – except for a few white people (they were always there, deep thinkers, tho few in number) who could see the entire picture and what was coming down the road.

        China, another once-tough civilization of a different sort altogether, is undergoing a process of dissolution, though maybe the trajectory is different, and slower. For them, it started a long time ago.

    • Anna Cordelia
      Anna Cordelia says:

      “The Jew… has never yet created a cultural form of his own, and …never will, since all his instincts and talents require a more or less civilized nation to act as host for their development.”

      Fascinating that Israel has since been established… a state that requires endless subsidies from the USA, ongoing reparations from Germany, and a globalized economy to plunder in order to exist.

    • Sam J.
      Sam J. says:

      I was going to comment the same on how perceptive that quote was. There’s another one he recognized.

      “The Jew truly solicits anti-Semitism with his readiness to scent out anti-Semitism everywhere.”

      It appears to me the Jew’s constant unceasing refrain of Hitler, Hitler, Hitler is beginning to backfire.

      Without saying Hitler is good or bad, people look at this, present, “jew clown world” and then compare to an imaginary “Hitler World” and a lot of people if they could choose would choose “Hitler World”. You see this in a lot of younger people.

      Their biggest advantage was that they could be thrown out or move somewhere else every 100 years or so and start over, but the internet means people know, they know what they are up for with them and no one wants them. Combine this with their mass wars of aggression, which are failing, all over the planet and the future does not look good for them. And they know it. Very dangerous time until they can be contained.

      Jewish behavior pattern and results.

  4. jank
    jank says:

    “For a long time I’ve been fascinated by the way in which Jews obsess over deceased, historical figures who made unflattering comments about their race. ”

    Jewish power is total, and has been since the institutionalization of christianity, with its individuation of us, ridiculous, sadomasochistic worldview, and focus on after worlds (while jews take over this one) but their power is very fragile because it doesn’t depend on their strength, which they don’t have (and has atrophied over time), but rather our weakness, our unawareness, our scattered chaos, our demilitarized worldview, our unconscious surrender to their hidden power. We are so brainwashed into an individualistic consciousness, that a collective consciousness is so alien to us, we can’t see how the jews have harnessed it to control us. They know we, outside their machine, exist within a very shallow, fast paced culture, which allows jews, as a collective identity, a team, a cult working in unionism, to walk right in, takeover our social systems, and exploit us all to death (they are very close to achieving this now). But they know that a mass awakening, a collective epiphany (which wouldn’t take much), could awaken this sleeping giant and roll over them, thus they are extremely paranoid that someone might somehow, see through their mirages, and somehow awaken the zombies. Did Jung describe this is his book “Psychology of the Unconscious”?
    The modern era of literacy and mass education (which early catholics outlawed), with its printed books, and progeny of newspapers, magazines, radio, telephone, tv, and now internet, (which has exploded communication among the masses) has multiplied the threat the jew cult faces, least a new and improved series of national socialist movement arise worldwide and forever shut down this shallow, mass murdering, curse that has injected death and despair on the planet for millennia. Maybe we should collectively write a new book entitled The Psychology of the jew aware, or the awakened?

  5. Polemeros
    Polemeros says:

    In order to investigate the real world results of his work, Jung set up the Analytical Psychology Club, patterned after the men’s clubs of England, where people who had been through analysis could socialize.

    In its initial constitution, it mandated that no more than 10% of the members could be Jews.

    Given the current state of the Jungian world, totally Woke, that was 10% too many.

  6. August West
    August West says:

    Very good article. Shows the jews weakness and their wicked ways. Keep up the good work.
    Remember always point out the jew. Good example of why. The current president most people blame him an old white man for the failures the country when it’s actually the nearly all jew administration. Point it out all the jews running government. Look it’s a jew in that position and look that’s another jew in that one. And look it’s a jew over there controlling all media and look some more jews running pharmaceutical companies. Yes point it out to regular people ao they can begin to see the jew. Point out the jew just as you should point at a whorish women or one of those mudsharks. Look there a jew hidding behind that rock. Look theres a jew peddling pornography. Tell people about the jew and their wicked ways. Open their eyes and in doing so maybe save their soul. It should be a common saying among good people that the jew is our greatest enemy. Death and destruction, it’s the jews. It’s always the jews. May God bless all working against the threat and may God grant us victory over the jew disease.

  7. Alan
    Alan says:

    Another fabulous article with stentorian incisive comments on Jung versus The horrifying Homosexual Jew Sigmund Freud..the father of so much dysphoria….Jung snapped in his natural revulsion to the vampire energy draining squid..the snarling homosexual jew Sigmund freud..the father of so many vile reprobate extensive jewish sick fantasies..mentally dysphoric lies..Jung could not stand the homosexuall jew fraudster sigmund freud.who was .hiding behind a wife he despised and apparantly never touched”… freud in vienna displayed serpentine. layers of fiery burning smoldering relentless hate for Christians..for Goyim..for Non Jews.The escapee from the lover of lord Satan..(freud)was Jung s chance to establish his own truths and perception -observations on The Jews.*,For new readers who
    almost assuredly dont know….or young people who stumble across the untrammeled unobstructed clarity of TOO..particularly but not limited to prof.KM..we find that Nesta webster..Nikola Tesla..Eustace Mullins and Ezra pound should be recommended for further reading on the JQ. We still very much like Henry Ford and the truly blessed Willam Luther Pierce.,who,after all, turned out to be correct. about so many. things…
    For. all who would free their minds …souls and wallets from the jew devil scorpions..all the abovementioned are excellent. to read.
    For Christians … John Chrysistom..Martin Luther,James Wickstrom and Chuck Baldwin…young Christians who correctly want nothong to do. with sclerotic priveledged schizoid vampire jews… young atheists.. young darwinists.. young pagans …may find all of these writers fadcinating.Be advised new readers who may have only recently found Prof.KM…and TOO. … .that in our era..there is Harry Vox..David James Boston. Fir catholics..nick fuentes e.m.jones..and for folk..ryan dawson is good on zionism and big networked jewish super criminality……but know also..The Oryhodox Church was always snti isresl furster also…from inception”…so…you are not alone in correct moral revulsion to The Jews* See also Ernst Zundel*

  8. Jimmie Joe
    Jimmie Joe says:

    “The power drive from a physicist’s perspective”: Prof. Ganteför looks at the workings of human society with his extremely simplistic eyes. In his world, there seems to be only status, power, control, subjugation. He warns that “democracy” is in constant danger of succumbing to the collective primal instincts of authoritarian technoid dictatorship.

    Activate auto-subs.

    A sociologist called Eugen Lemberg (sounds like a Jewish name, but doesn’t seem to have been) gave him this idea as a student. To me, this sounds more like a crude mixture of Konrad Lorenz and the mechanistic view of the world of a natural scientist who sees the world as consisting only of predators and prey, like Hitler himself: eat or be eaten.

    Canadian presents “A different version of history”.

  9. Michal H. Donahue
    Michal H. Donahue says:

    Comment to the author Marschall:

    You write of a racial conflict between jews and germans or non jews in Europe.

    Stating that jews are of a different race is not factual, it is wrong.

    Jews originate from 4 founding individuals, hailing from Europe. Jews are at least 50 % European, of northern Italian (Florence region) and Greek origin. They are about 40 to 50 % northern Levian (white people from southern Russia and they were white in Turkey before the turkmenians arrived/invaded). All whites are part levin. In fact most Italians and Greek are more Levian than Jews.

    Many jews, probably even a majority are to a small degree mixed with africans it seems to be like 1 to 4 % (but a large portion of Europeans are, Hitler was according to gene tests). Around 30 % of jews are not mixed with Arabs at all.

    So yes one may call people who are a bit mixed another race. But I would assume calling them very slightly mixed ethnic origin might be more appropriate and correct.

    So I would certainly say there is no jewish race first of all, they are white. Just a fact.

    And yes, some part of them are a bit mixed, but so is 7 % of Texas white population (slavery times). A large part of Southern Italy and so on and so on…

    So it seems to be at large a cultural and historical and religious thing.

    Unless one has the view that a little mixing will make people ani white. This may certainly be the case with some individuals but probably not for most.

      • Michael H. Donahue
        Michael H. Donahue says:

        Here are part of the sources, I could not find all relevant ones at this time. The citations are followed by the link to the source:

        “a team of scientists, led by geneticist Martin Richards at the University of Huddersfield in the United Kingdom, embarked on a new search for the origins of these four founder groups.

        The result was very clear-cut, the authors say: As reported online today in Nature Communications, more than 80% of Ashkenazi mtDNAs had their origins thousands of years ago in Western Europe, during or before Biblical times—and in some cases even before farming came to that part of the continent some 7500 years ago. The closest matches were with mtDNAs from people who today live in and around Italy.

        Here we show that all four major founders, ~40% of Ashkenazi mtDNA variation, have ancestry in prehistoric Europe, rather than the Near East or Caucasus. Furthermore, most of the remaining minor founders share a similar deep European ancestry. Thus the great majority of Ashkenazi maternal lineages were not brought from the Levant, as commonly supposed, nor recruited in the Caucasus, as sometimes suggested, but … within Europe”

        “The data are very convincing,” says Antonio Torroni, a geneticist at the University of Pavia in Italy and a leading expert in the genetics of Europeans. He adds that recent studies of DNA from the cell nucleus have also shown “a very close similarity between Ashkenazi Jews and Italians.”

        “A 2013 study led by Professor Martin B. Richards, concluded … % of Ashkenazi Mt-DNA is European in origin, including all four founding mothers, and that most of the remaining lineages are also European. The results were published in Nature Communications in October 2013”

        “It was discovered that in the vast majority of cases, Ashkenazi lineages are most closely related to those of southern and western Europe and that they had been present in Europe for many thousands of years.”

        “that all of these founders originated in Europe. The majority of the remaining people could be traced to other European lineages.
        All told, more than 80 percent of the maternal lineages of Ashkenazi Jews could be traced to Europe”

        “The Italians from Tuscany are in fact the closest population to Ashkenazi Jews
        their smallest distance is to Italians and then to Greeks.

        Italians and Greeks are closer to the Middle Eastern populations than Ashkenazi Jews.”

        “the Ashkenazim were closest to South European populations (specifically the Greeks)”

        “Moreover, by comparing the genomes of Ashkenazi Jews with those of Flemish origin, the researchers found strong evidence that the ancestry of the modern-day Ashkenazi can be traced to a fairly even mixture of European and … descent”

        “Four “founding mothers” who lived in Europe a thousand years ago were the ancestors of two fifths of all Ashkenazi (European origin) Jews.

        The “four founding mothers,” he added, “are from lineages that originate long before the launching of the Jewish people some 3400 years ago.”

        “a pre-Islamic expansion Levant was more genetically similar to Europeans than to Middle Easterners”

        “A 2009 study on various European and Near Eastern ethnic groups found Ashkenazi Jews to show closer Genetic distance with Italians, Greeks, Germans and other European groups than what they show with Levantine groups

        appear to have a unique genotypic pattern that may not reflect geographic origins”

        • Gundolf
          Gundolf says:

          Since in your first comment you made the (probably unintentional) “mistake” of writing the English name Marshall with the German “sch”, it can be safely assumed that the (very imaginative) name Donahue is not your civil one. But that’s just a side note.

          One should indeed ask oneself who and what motives are behind this controversial (accordong to the MSM “surprising”) individual study. That Jews are supposed to be “half genetic Europeans” is in fact more a matter of interpretation as we know it from the “climate scientists”.

          First of all, it would have to be clarified who actually counts as “European”. In the case of Germans, for example, this should be reasonably unquestionable, even if they ultimately represent a mixture of the streams of peoples that moved through their present territory for thousands of years.

          The idea that Ashkenazi Jews are in fact genetically more Florentine than Oriental seems somewhat far-fetched to me. I think any of us could identify and distinguish 20 “real” Florentines from 20 “real” Jews at first glance. The alleged stereotype about their typical physiognomy or phenotype is largely true.

          Whether Hitler had “negroid genes” can also be doubted simply because the alleged researchers are acting in the service of a post-war order. This is supposed to prove “how nonsensical his racism was”. Of course.

          I remember a few years ago when the Swiss genetic institute IGENEA published a “study” claiming that German women were more German than German men. Which still makes some sense, after all, millions of German men died in the world wars. But the rest of the nonsense is quite something. Incidentally, the biology graduate in charge had the Jewish name Apter.

          In addition, the question arises as to who is a Jew at all or should be considered as such. For example, the liberal or progressive (“assimilated”) Jewry located on the outer edges of the topos “Judaism” is not considered to belong to Judaism at all for the inner core, which is primarily characterized by inbreeding. It is therefore very likely that mainly assimilated “Europeanized” Jews took part in your so-called “study”.

          • Michael H. Donahue
            Michael H. Donahue says:

            Maybe I should clarify, or you did not get what I wrote.

            These are all citations direct from the reports of leading scientists on DNA & heritage at UNIVERSITIES. Many of the professors. Some from ITALY.

            These exact citations are mainly from the science reports themselves, which you can read. I did supply the links.

            So this is NOT my research at all.

            Also there is no real jewish look. Yes many have so-called roman or eagle noses, also common among north and South American indians, Italians (very common in Florence). See for example Leonardo Da Vinci and Antonio Vivaldi.

            I would find it hard spotting the difference between a latin European person (France, Belgium, Switzerland. Italy, Greece…) and a Jewish person.

            Not all jews have eagle noses. Some of them have eagle noses that are also flat. Many Greeks have flat noses and so do many eastern Europeans (maybe because they are on the average like 8 % Greek). And given the closeness with these regions genetically and historic ties this might very well be the origin of such looks certainly common among this people.

            And many inventors with French names have eagle noses and so do many classical music composers such as Mozart and Bach.

          • Michael H. Donahue
            Michael H. Donahue says:

            That Jews are about 50 % European and about 50 % northern Levian (i.e. not originally from Israel) seems to be the common standpoint among genetic experts based on SCIENCE.

            Also the Levantines, especially the northern ones were more close to Europeans than to the current levantines. And all Europeans are partially Levantine.

            Also it is clear that Jews have a lot of unique genetics, which also the finns have. This is also common between different regions in Italy (large differences) and different parts of Africa (differences, genetically between different regions).

            I think it was about 74 % of jews that are mixed with Arabs to a smaller degree…

            Anyways …

          • Gundolf
            Gundolf says:

            As we all know, Tel Aviv is considered a not entirely insignificant place for today’s global political events, to put it mildly. Yet how is it possible that one of the founders of this place is completely omitted from the Wikipedia entry on Tel Aviv, in all languages?

            An almost mysterious process, but one that becomes immediately explainable when one learns that this person named Arthur Ruppin is said to have been a Zionist who, according to his time, is said to have had an almost volkish-racist view of Judaism and the Jewish state, and whose influence was still felt in Israel long after his death. And this does not even refer to the racism that left its unmistakable mark in the Talmud.

            The city of Haifa endowed a state prize (Ruppin Prize) in his honor. Winners include Leah Goldberg and Felix Weltsch. A kibbutz is named Kfar Ruppin in Ruppin’s honor. Ruppin’s son Raphael was Israel’s first ambassador to Tanzania, his daughter Carmella was the wife of Jiggael Jadin (second Chief of Staff of the Israel Defense Forces and Deputy Prime Minister), his daughter Ajah was President of the Women’s International Zionist Organization and the wife of Zvi Dinstein (Deputy Minister of Defense and Deputy Minister of Finance).




            “Ruppin’s meeting with the race ideologue Hans F. K. Günther is the subject of Dani Gal’s film White City, in which the artist traces points of contact in the thinking of Zionists and National Socialists. Gal has constructed what was said at this meeting from Ruppin’s diary entries.”


            Also interesting:

Comments are closed.